Should any use of artificial cycle regimen for frozen-thawed embryo transfer in women capable of ovulation be abandoned: yes, but what's next for FET cycle practice and research?


Journal

Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 07 2022
Historique:
received: 27 01 2022
revised: 10 05 2022
pubmed: 1 6 2022
medline: 3 8 2022
entrez: 31 5 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Over the past decade, the use of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles has increased substantially. The artificial ('programmed') cycle regimen, which suppresses ovulation, is widely used for that purpose, also in ovulatory women or women capable of ovulation, under the assumption of equivalent efficacy in terms of pregnancy achievement as compared to a natural cycle or modified natural cycle. The advantage of the artificial cycle is the easy alignment of the time point of thawing and transferring embryos with organizational necessities of the IVF laboratory, the treating doctors and the patient. However, recent data indicate that pregnancy establishment under absence of a corpus luteum as a consequence of anovulation may cause relevant maternal and fetal risks. Herein, we argue that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not needed to aid in the clinical decision for or against routine artificial cycle regimen use in ovulatory women. We also argue that RCTs are unlikely to answer the most burning questions of interest in that context, mostly because of lack of power and precision in detecting rare but decisive adverse outcomes (e.g. pre-eclampsia risk or long-term neonatal health outcomes). We pinpoint that, instead, large-scale observational data are better suited for that purpose. Eventually, we propose that the existing understanding and evidence is sufficient already to discourage the use of artificial cycle regimens for FET in ovulatory women or women capable of ovulation, as these may cause a strong deviation from physiology, thereby putting patient and fetus at avoidable health risk, without any apparent health benefit.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35640158
pii: 6594532
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac125
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1697-1703

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Frauke von Versen-Höynck (F)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Georg Griesinger (G)

Department of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH