Luteal phase progesterone supplementation following induced natural cycle frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study

Preparation of the endometrium for frozen embryo transfer: an update on clinical practices

Over the past decade, the application of frozen-thawed embryo transfer treatment cycles has increased substantially. Hormone replacement therapy and the natural cycle are two popular methods for preparing the endometrium. Hormone replacement therapy is now used at the discretion of the doctors because it is easy to coordinate the timing of embryo thawing and transfer with the schedules of the in-vitro fertilization lab, the treating doctors, and the patient. However, current results suggest that establishing a pregnancy in the absence of a corpus luteum as a result of anovulation may pose significant maternal and fetal risks. Therefore, a 'back to nature' approach that advocates an expanded use of natural cycle FET in ovulatory women has been suggested. Currently, there is increasing interest in how the method of endometrial preparation may influence frozen embryo transfer outcomes specifically, especially when it comes to details such as different types of ovulation monitoring and different luteal support in natural cycles, and the ideal exogenous hormone administration route as well as the endocrine monitoring in hormone replacement cycles. In addition to improving implantation rates and ensuring the safety of the fetus, addressing these points will allow for individualized endometrial preparation, also as few cycles as possible would be canceled.

Premature timing of progesterone luteal phase support initiation did not negatively impact live birth rates in modified natural frozen thawed embryo transfer cycles

Study question

In a modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET), does the premature timing of progesterone luteal phase support (LPS) initiation 24 h following human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger impact live birth?

Summary answer

Premature LPS initiation did not negatively affect the live birth rate (LBR) in mNC-FET cycles compared with conventional LPS initiation 48 h after hCG triggering.

What is known already

During natural cycle FET, human chorionic gonadotropin is routinely used to mimic endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) surge to induce ovulation, which allows more flexibility in embryo transfer scheduling, thus relieving the burden of multiple visits by patients and laboratory workloads, which is also known as mNC-FET. Moreover, recent data demonstrates that ovulatory women undergoing natural cycle FETs have a lower risk of maternal and fetal complications due to the essential role of the corpus luteum in implantation, placentation and pregnancy maintenance. While several studies have confirmed the positive effects of LPS in mNC-FETs, the timing of progesterone LPS initiation is still unclear, as compared with fresh cycles where robust research has been conducted. To the best of our knowledge, no clinical studies comparing different beginning days in mNC-FET cycles have been published.

Study design size duration

This retrospective cohort study involved 756 mNC-FET cycles performed at a university-affiliated reproductive center between January 2019 and August 2021. The primary outcome measured was the LBR.

Participants/materials setting methods

Ovulatory women ≤42 years of age who were referred for their autologous mNC-FET cycles were included in the study. According to the timing of progesterone LPS initiation following the hCG trigger, patients were assigned into two categories: premature LPS group (progesterone initiation 24 h after hCG trigger, n = 182) versus conventional LPS group (progesterone initiation 48 h after hCG trigger, n = 574). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounding variables.

Main results and the role of chance

There were no differences in background characteristics between the two study groups, except for the proportion of assisted hatching (53.8% in premature LPS group versus 42.3% in conventional LPS group, p = 0.007). In the premature LPS group, 56 of 182 patients (30.8%) had a live birth, compared to 179 of 574 patients (31.2%) in the conventional LPS group, with no significant difference observed between groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.43, p = 0.913). In addition, there was no significant difference between the two groups in other secondary outcomes. A sensitivity analysis for LBR according to the serum LH and progesterone levels on hCG trigger day also confirmed the aforementioned findings.

Limitations reasons for caution

In this study, retrospective analysis was conducted in a single center and was therefore prone to bias. Additionally, we did not anticipate monitoring the patient's follicle rupture and ovulation after hCG triggering. Future prospective clinical trials remain necessary to confirm our results.

Wider implications of the findings

While exogenous progesterone LPS was added 24 h after hCG triggering, embryo-endometrium synchrony would not be adversely affected so long as sufficient time was allowed for endometrial exposure to exogenous progesterone. Our data support promising clinical outcomes following this event. As a result of our findings, clinicians and patients will be able to make better informed decisions.

Study funding/competing interests

No specific funding was available for this study. The authors have no personal conflicting interests to declare.

Trial registration number

N/A.

Vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (ProFET): protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Vaginal progesterone supplementation is frequently given to patients receiving frozen embryo transfer (FET) in the natural cycle aiming to increase the chance of pregnancy and live birth. To date, only a few studies have investigated if progesterone supplementation is beneficial in these cycles and the level of evidence for progesterone supplementation is very low.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ProFET trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial powered for this investigation, including 1800 women with regular menstrual cycles (24-35 days), aged 18-43 years planned for natural cycle-FET receiving a single blastocyst for transfer. Participants are randomised (1:1:1) to either luteal phase progesterone for 3 weeks, luteal phase progesterone for 7 weeks or no luteal phase progesterone. The participating study centres consist of 12 in vitro fertilisation-clinics in Sweden and 1 in Iceland. The primary outcome is to investigate if luteal phase support (LPS) by vaginal progesterone increases the chance of a live birth per randomised patient in a natural FET cycle compared with no LPS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (ID 2020-06774, 2021-02822 and 2022-01502-02) and the Swedish Medical Products Agency (ID nr 5.1-2020-102613). All participants are required to provide written informed consent. The outcome of this study will be disseminated to the public through broadcasts, newspapers and presentations at scientific congresses as well as publications in international scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04725864.

Luteal phase support for natural cycle frozen embryo transfer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the effect of luteal phase support (LPS) on pregnancy outcome in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET).

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase for related literature from start to February 2020. Relative risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) in random-effects, fixed-effects models were calculated using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Totally 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference could be found regarding chemical pregnancy rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.22; I² = 54%) and miscarriage rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.22; I² = 0%) between the LPS groups and no LPS groups in NC-FET. LPS groups has increased the rate of clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.34; I² = 52%) compared with no LPS groups. Subgroup analysis according to trigger administration also showed a significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

LPS might improve the clinical pregnancy rate in NC-FET. HCG trigger for ovulating may result in luteal phase deficiency. LPS subsequently improved clinical pregnancy rate and chemical pregnancy rate for patients undergoing HCG trigger and NC-FET.

RETROSPECTIVELY REGISTERED

This meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, PROSPERO ID is CRD42020171758.

A randomized controlled trial of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in modified natural cycle - frozen embryo transfer

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to study whether luteal phase support (LPS) increases the live-birth rate (LBR) in women undergoing modified natural cycle (mNC) frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET).

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial, conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary medical center, a total of 59 patients aged 18-45 years, underwent mNC-FET. FET was performed in mNC following ovulation triggering by hCG. Patients were randomized into two groups; The No-LPS Group included 28 women who did not receive LPS, and the LPS Group included 31 women who received vaginal progesterone for LPS. The main outcome measure was LBR.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The no-LPS group and the LPS group did not differ with regard to clinical pregnancy rate (21.4% vs. 32.3%; respectively, p = .35), LBR (17.9% vs. 19.4%; respectively, p = .88), or spontaneous miscarriage rate (3.6% vs. 12.9%; respectively, p = .35). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, LPS was not associated with LBR after controlling for confounders.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study suggest that LPS after mNC-FET does not improve the reproductive outcome, and therefore, might not be necessary.C linicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01483365.

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice

Objective

Progesterone application for luteal phase support is a well-established concept in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Water-soluble subcutaneous progesterone injections have shown pregnancy rates equivalent to those observed in patients receiving vaginal administration in randomized controlled trials. Our study aimed to investigate whether the results from those pivotal trials could be reproduced in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study in non-standardized daily clinical practice, we compared 273 IVF cycles from 195 women undergoing IVF at our center for luteal phase support with vaginal administration of 200 mg of micronized progesterone three times daily or subcutaneous injection of 25 mg of progesterone per day.

Results

Various patient characteristics including age, weight, height, number of oocytes, and body mass index were similar between both groups. We observed no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per treatment cycle between the subcutaneous (39.9%) and vaginal group (36.5%) (p=0.630). Covariate analysis showed significant correlations of the number of transferred embryos and the total dosage of stimulation medication with the CPR. However, after adjustment of the CPR for these covariates using a regression model, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (odds ratio, 0.956; 95% confidence interval, 0.512–1.786; p=0.888).

Conclusion

In agreement with randomized controlled trials in study populations with strict selection criteria, our study determined that subcutaneous progesterone was equally effective as vaginally applied progesterone in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

New concepts and difficulties with progesterone supplementation in the luteal phase

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of the luteal phase (LP) in assisted reproductive cycles has aroused interest in recent years. The reason is that it seems that the individualization of LP support may be necessary, since the concept of 'one size fits all' does not apply to this treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies carried out in hormone replacement therapy cycles (also called artificial cycles) have shown that serum levels of progesterone (P) are related to pregnancy outcomes. This represents a milestone in the management of artificial cycles (AC), because until a few years ago it was believed that serum levels did not really reflect the effectiveness of P, which is why they were neglected. However, it is not as straightforward as it seems, because the interpretation of serum progesterone values will depend on the type of progesterone used and its route of administration. Likewise, the findings observed in AC are not applicable to what occurs in a fresh transfer cycle after ovarian stimulation or an embryo transfer in the context of a natural cycle.

SUMMARY

In this manuscript, we will summarize the current situation in LP management.

To trigger or not to trigger ovulation in a natural cycle for frozen embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following a frozen embryo transfer (FET) in a natural cycle (NC) higher after spontaneous ovulation than after triggered ovulation [natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) versus modified NC-FET]?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The CPR did not vary significantly between the two FET preparation protocols.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Although the use of FET is continuously increasing, the most optimal endometrial preparation protocol is still under debate. For transfer in the NC specifically, conflicting results have been reported in terms of the outcome following spontaneous or triggered ovulation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In a tertiary hospital setting, subjects were randomized with a 1:1 allocation into two groups between January 2014 and January 2019. Patients in group A underwent an NC-FET, while in group B, a modified NC-FET was performed with a subcutaneous hCG injection to trigger ovulation. In neither group was additional luteal phase support administered. All embryos were vitrified-warmed on Day 3 and transferred on Day 4 of embryonic development. The primary outcome was CPR at 7 weeks. All patients were followed further until 10 weeks of gestation when the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) was defined by the observation of foetal cardiac activity on ultrasound scan. Other secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy rate, early pregnancy loss and the number of visits, blood samples and ultrasonographic examinations prior to FET.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 260 patients (130 per study arm) were randomized, of whom 12 withdrew consent after study arm allocation. A total of 3 women conceived spontaneously before initiating the study cycle and 16 did not start for personal or medical reasons. Of the 229 actually commencing monitoring for the study FET cycle, 7 patients needed to be switched to a hormonal replacement treatment protocol due to the absence of follicular development, 12 had no embryo available for transfer after warming and 37 had a spontaneous LH surge before the ovulation trigger could be administered, although they were allocated to group B. Given the above, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed taking into account 248 patients (125 in group A and 123 in group B), as well as a per protocol (PP) analysis on a subset of 173 patients (110 in group A and 63 in group B).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Demographic features were evenly distributed between the study groups, as were the relevant fresh and frozen ET cycle characteristics. According to the ITT analysis, the CPR and OPR in group A (33.6% and 27.2%, respectively) and group B (29.3% and 24.4%, respectively) did not vary significantly [relative risk (RR) 0.87, 95% CI (0.60;1.26), P = 0.46 and RR 0.90, 95% CI (0.59;1.37), P = 0.61, respectively]. Biochemical pregnancy rate and early pregnancy loss were also found to be not statistically significantly different between the groups. In contrast, more clinic visits and blood samplings for cycle monitoring were required in the NC-FET group (4.05 ± 1.39) compared with the modified NC-FET group (3.03 ± 1.16, P = <0.001), while the number of ultrasound scans performed were comparable (1.70 ± 0.88 in group A versus 1.62 ± 1.04 in group B). The additional PP analysis was in line with the ITT results: CPR in group A was 36.4% versus 38.1% in group B [RR 1.05, 95% CI (0.70;1.56), P = 0.82].

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results are limited by the high drop-out rate for the PP analysis in the modified NC-FET group as more than one-third of the subjects allocated to this group ovulated spontaneously before ovulation triggering. Nonetheless, this issue is inherent to routine clinical practice and is an important observation of an event that can only be avoided by performing a very extensive monitoring that limits the practical advantages associated with modified NC-FET. Furthermore, although this is the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating this specific research question so far, a higher sample size would allow smaller differences in clinical outcome to be detected, since currently they may be left undetected.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This RCT adds new high-quality evidence to the existing controversial literature concerning the performance of NC-FET versus modified NC-FET. Based on our results showing no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between the protocols, the treatment choice may be made according to the patient's and treating physician's preferences. However, the modified NC-FET strategy reduces the need for hormonal monitoring and may therefore be considered a more patient-friendly and potentially cost-effective approach.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No specific funding was available for this study. None of the authors have a conflict of interest to declare with regard to this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02145819.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

8 January 2014.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

21 January 2014.

Should women receive luteal support following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous ovulation during a natural menstrual cycle is frequently used for timing frozen embryo transfer (FET). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether or not women should receive luteal phase support (LPS) following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET).

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study whether the administration of LPS improves the reproductive outcome following NC-FET.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the literature published in Medline/PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from January 2000 until December 2020. We included all original English, peer-reviewed articles, irrespective of the study design. The search strategy included keywords related to NC-FET and luteal phase support. Studies reporting the results of artificial or stimulated FET cycles were excluded.

OUTCOMES

Our systematic search generated 416 records. After screening, eight studies were included in the review and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies (n = 858) used hCG and six studies (n = 1507) used progesterone for luteal support. Four studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), whereas the other four were historic cohort studies. In a meta-analysis using a random effects model, hCG administration for LPS did not increase the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (two studies, odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). On the other hand, progesterone LPS was associated with a higher CPR (five studies, OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14-1.94), and a higher live birth rate (LBR) (three studies, OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.19-2.36). The association between progesterone LPS and the LBR remained significant after excluding non-randomised studies.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The available evidence indicates that progesterone administration for LPS is beneficial following NC-FET. There is no evidence to support the administration of hCG for LPS in these cases. Additional large RCTs are necessary to improve the quality of evidence and validate our findings.

What is the optimal luteal support in assisted reproductive technology?

The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use.A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety.The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test.So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT's are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.

Oral dydrogesterone vs. micronized vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer in good prognosis patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support (LPS) in modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfers (mNC-FET) compared to micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel.

METHODS

This was a randomized, single-center, parallel controlled trial conducted at an ART and Reproductive Genetics Centre within a private hospital between January and August 2019. A total of 134 women, aged below 38, were assigned randomly to receive oral dydrogesterone (n=67) or MVP (n=67) for LPS in mNC-FET. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates, patients' satisfaction and tolerability of oral and vaginal progesterone. A questionnaire was developed to compare patient satisfaction and side effect profiles.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in demographic features such as female age, body mass index, AMH levels and fresh cycle characteristics between two groups (p>0.05). When mNC-FET outcomes were compared, OPR was 68.7 % in MVP gel group and 71.6 % in the dydrogesterone group respectively percentage difference, -2.99; 95 % CI: -17.96, 13.10) Biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates and biochemical and clinical miscarriage rates were also similar between two groups. A significantly higher patient tolerability score was present in the dydrogesterone arm (4.09 ± 0.96 vs 3.36 ± 1.23, p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that oral dydrogesterone provides similar ongoing pregnancy rates compared to MVP gel as a LPS in mNC FET. Since dydrogesterone is an effective and easy-to-use option with fewer intolerable side effects including vaginal irritation, vaginal discharge, and preventing sexual intercourse, it can be used as LPS in mNC FET.

Is there a critical LH level for hCG trigger after the detection of LH surge in modified natural frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles?

Purpose

There is no consensus yet in the literature on an optimal luteinizing hormone (LH) level for human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) trigger timing in patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) with modified natural cycles (mNC). The objective of our study was to compare the clinical results of hCG trigger at different LH levels in mNC-FET cases.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in Istanbul Memorial Hospital ART and Genetics Center. A total of 1076 cases with 1163 mNC-FET cycles were evaluated. LH levels between the start of LH rise (15 IU/L) and LH peak level (> 40 IU/L) were evaluated. Cycles were analyzed in four groups: group A (n = 287) LH level on the day prior to the day of hCG; groups B, C and D, LH levels on the day of hCG: group B (n = 245) LH 15–24.9; group C (n = 253), LH 25–39.9; group D (n = 383) LH ≥ 40. Cycle outcomes in the four groups were compared.

Results

Subgroup analyses of mNC-FET groups showed that implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, and pregnancy losses were not significantly different in patients with different LH levels on the day of hCG trigger.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that hCG can be administered at any time between the start of LH rise (≥ 15 IU/L) and LH peak level (≥ 40 IU/L) without a detrimental effect on clinical outcome.

Progesterone use in assisted reproductive technology

Progesterone is the main hormone in the luteal phase. It plays a key role in preparing the uterus for a possible pregnancy, and in maintaining it after it has occurred. In assisted reproduction treatments, there is usually a luteal phase deficiency, so it is necessary to supplement this critical phase to obtain the best results, not only of implantation but also of ongoing pregnancy. Among all the available options, exogenously administered progestogens are the most used, as they have proven their efficacy and safety. This review will address the most relevant aspects of luteal phase support with progesterone in the different scenarios an embryo transfer can be performed, such as the stimulated cycle, the artificial cycle, or the natural cycle. Although there is no evidence of the perfect protocol for all patients, recent studies point to the need of individualizing luteal phase support according to the needs of each patient.

Preparation of the endometrium and timing of blastocyst transfer in modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfers (mNC-FET): a study protocol for a randomised controlled multicentre trial

INTRODUCTION

Despite the high number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles being conducted (190 000 cycles/year) in Europe, the timing of blastocyst transfer and the use of luteal phase progesterone support in modified natural cycle FET (mNC-FET) in assisted reproductive technologies are controversial. In mNC-FET, the timing of blastocyst warming and transfer is determined according to the time of implantation in a natural cycle, aiming to reach blastocyst endometrial synchronicity. However, the optimal day of blastocyst transfer following ovulation trigger is not determined. In addition, the value of luteal phase support to maintain the endometrium remains uncertain. Thus, there is a need to identify the optimal timing of blastocyst warming and transfer and the effect of luteal phase support in a randomised controlled trial design. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate if progesterone supplementation from the early luteal phase until gestational age 8 weeks is superior to no progesterone supplementation and to assess if blastocyst warming and transfer 6 days after ovulation trigger is superior to 7 days after ovulation trigger in mNC-FET with live birth rates as the primary outcome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Multicentre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded trial including 604 normo-ovulatory women aged 18-41 years undergoing mNC-FET with a high-quality blastocyst originating from their first to third in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle. Participants are randomised (1:1:1:1) to either luteal phase progesterone or no luteal phase progesterone and to blastocyst warming and transfer on day 6 or 7 after human chorionic gonadotropin trigger. Only single blastocyst transfers will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Danish Committee on Health Research Ethics (H-18025839), the Danish Medicines Agency (2018061319) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (VD-2018-381). The results of the study will be publicly disseminated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study is registered in EudraCT (2018-002207-34) and on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03795220); Pre-results.

Effects of intramuscular and vaginal progesterone supplementation on frozen-thawed embryo transfer

This study was to investigate effects of progesterone vaginal sustained-release gel and intramuscular injection of progesterone on frozen-thawed embryos transfer in 3013 patients receiving vaginal progesterone sustained-release gel and progesterone injection in artificial cycle for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. All patients were divided into two groups: group A with progesterone intramuscular injection (60 mg/d) plus dydrogesterone (10 mg tid) and group B with progesterone vaginal sustained-release gel of progesterone (90 mg/d) plus dydrogesterone (10 mg tid). There were 1988 women in group A treated with progesterone injection and 1025 women in group B with progesterone vaginal sustained-release gel. There were no statistically (P > 0.05) significant difference between the two groups in age, years of infertility, body mass index, endometrial thickness at transfer time, the average numbers of embryo transferred, cause of infertility, number of cycles, pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate. No significant (P > 0.05) differences existed in the clinical pregnancy (52.5% vs. 56.0%) and ectopic pregnancy (2.2% vs. 3.0%) rate between groups A and B. However, group B with vaginal progesterone supplementation had significantly (P < 0.05) greater implantation (37.0% vs 34.4%), delivery (45.1% vs. 41.0%) and live birth (45.0% vs. 40.8%) rate than group A with intramuscular progesterone injection, whereas group A had significantly (P < 0.05) greater early abortion rate (19.4% vs. 15.3%) than group B. This study showed that vaginal gel progesterone supplementation has good effects on frozen-thawed embryo transfer and can significantly increase the rate of implantation, delivery and live birth but decrease the abortion rate compared with intramuscular progesterone injection.