The human factor: does the operator performing the embryo transfer significantly impact the cycle outcome?
IVF success rate
embryo transfer
experience
learning curve
operator
Journal
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 02 2020
29 02 2020
Historique:
received:
01
10
2019
revised:
02
12
2019
pubmed:
27
2
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
27
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Is Ongoing Pregnancy Rate (OPR) operator-dependent, and can experience improve embryo transfer efficiency? OPR is influenced by the operators who perform the embryo transfer (ET), and experience does not assure proficiency for everyone. ET remains the critical step in assisted reproduction. Although many other factors such as embryo quality and uterine receptivity impact embryo implantation, the proper ET technique is clearly an operator-dependent variable and as such it should be objectively standardized. Retrospective comparative analysis including all fresh ETs performed between January 1996 and December 2016 at the Humanitas Fertility Center after IVF-ICSI cycles. IVF/ICSI fresh ETs performed by 32 operators, 19 824 cycles in all, were analyzed. All transfers consisting of freehand insertion of a preloaded soft catheter into the uterine cavity under transabdominal ultrasound guidance were considered. Two different statistical analyses were performed. First, a logistic regression model with a random intercept for the operator was used to estimate the heterogeneity of the rate of success among operators, accounting for woman age, FSH, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, year of the procedure, number and stage of transferred embryos and operator's experience. Second, the relationship between experience and pregnancy rate was estimated separately for each operator by logistic regression, and operator-specific results were combined and compared in a random-effects meta-analysis. In both analyses, the operator's experience at time t was measured in terms of number of embryo transfers performed before t. The heterogeneity among operators was highly significant (P value <0.001) and explained 44.5% of the total variability. The odds ratio of success of the worst operator in respect to the mean was equal to 0.84. For the best operator, the odds ratio of success was equal to 1.13 in respect to the mean. Based on the meta-analysis of the relationship between operator's experience and success rate, it resulted that, on average, the operators' performance did not improve with additional transfers. At our center, operators become independent for ET's after performing between 30 and 50 transfers under supervision. It is also possible that other relevant factors, such as embryologists on duty for the ET, have not been included in the present analysis and this may represent a potential bias. Among these, it should be mentioned that the embryologists on duty for the ET were not taken into consideration. Continued performance analysis and the use of a digital simulator could help operators to test their expertise over time and either correct poor performance or avoid doing transfers. None. NCT03561129.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32100020
pii: 5758035
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez290
pmc: PMC7048715
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03561129']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
275-282Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
Fertil Steril. 2011 Apr;95(5):1860-2
pubmed: 21075368
Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct;90(4):1081-6
pubmed: 18001725
Fertil Steril. 1999 Jun;71(6):1001-9
pubmed: 10360901
Hum Reprod. 1998 Jul;13(7):1968-74
pubmed: 9740459
Hum Reprod. 2002 Oct;17(10):2632-5
pubmed: 12351540
Fertil Steril. 2009 Mar;91(3):949-52
pubmed: 17555751
Hum Reprod. 2003 Sep;18(9):1848-52
pubmed: 12923137
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD003416
pubmed: 19370588
Fertil Steril. 2000 Jul;74(1):80-6
pubmed: 10899501
Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Jan;64(618):50-1
pubmed: 24567574
Hum Reprod. 2013 Feb;28(2):343-9
pubmed: 23175501
Hum Reprod. 2009 Apr;24(4):880-7
pubmed: 19095665
Hum Reprod. 2002 Jul;17(7):1767-72
pubmed: 12093837
Hum Reprod. 2010 Feb;25(2):380-6
pubmed: 19923166
Fertil Steril. 2001 Jun;75(6):1136-40
pubmed: 11384639
Hum Reprod. 2003 Apr;18(4):774-80
pubmed: 12660270
Fertil Steril. 2006 Mar;85(3):728-34
pubmed: 16500345
Fertil Steril. 2005 Feb;83(2):316-20
pubmed: 15705368
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):658-62
pubmed: 19410247
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 May;82(5):462-6
pubmed: 12752077
Hum Reprod. 2002 Nov;17(11):2885-90
pubmed: 12407044
Placenta. 2003 Oct;24 Suppl B:S20-6
pubmed: 14559026
Fertil Steril. 2003 Jun;79(6):1416-21
pubmed: 12798891
Hum Reprod. 2001 Jul;16(7):1415-9
pubmed: 11425822
Fertil Steril. 2018 Jun;109(6):1038-1043.e1
pubmed: 29871795
Hum Reprod. 2005 Nov;20(11):3114-21
pubmed: 16040620