Obstetrics and Gynaecology - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemA survey study of endometrial receptivity tests and immunological treatments in in vitro fertilisation (IVF)(WILEY, 2022-04)BACKGROUND: Suboptimal endometrial receptivity is a key factor behind in vitro fertilisation (IVF) implantation failure. Direct clinical tests of the endometrium of natural killer (NK) cells and endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) are controversial. AIMS: To examine the current practice of endometrial receptivity tests (NK cells and ERA) and immunological treatments (corticosteroids, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, intravenous immunoglobulin, Intralipid, other) among fertility specialists in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: A prospective 23-item web-based survey was distributed by email via the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand, between August and October 2020. Data were collected and analysed using Qualtrics. RESULTS: Of 238 fertility specialists, 90 completed the survey (response rate 37.8%). ERA (48/90, 53.3%) was most commonly ordered, followed by uterine NK (uNK) (36/90, 40.0%) and peripheral blood NK (pNK) (12/90, 13.3%). For all tests, the most common indication was recurrent implantation failure (RIF) (41/48, 22/36, 6/12; 85.4%, 61.1%, and 50.0%, respectively for ERA, uNK and pNK). Of those that did not offer these tests, the main reason cited was insufficient evidence (30/42, 47/54, 68/78; 71.4%, 87.0%, and 87.0%). A third of specialists offered empirical immunological treatment for RIF (30/90, 33.3%): anticoagulants (28/30, 93.3%), antiplatelets (27/30, 90.0%), and corticosteroids (25/30; 83.3%). The majority of specialists (56/90, 62.2%) stated they had refused a patient request for endometrial testing or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tests for presumed endometrial receptivity pathology are often used in Australia and New Zealand. Immunological treatments for RIF are commonly employed empirically, without strong evidence of their effectiveness or safety. Further studies should focus on education and clinical adherence to evidence-based guidelines.
-
ItemReduced live birth rates in frozen versus fresh single cleavage embryo transfer cycles: A cross -sectional study(SHAHID SADOUGHI UNIV MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2020-07)BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that embryo-endometrial developmental asynchrony caused by slow-growing embryos can be corrected by freezing the embryo and transferring it back in a subsequent cycle. Therefore, we hypothesized that live birth rates (LBR) would be higher in frozen embryo transfer (FET) compared with fresh embryo transfers. OBJECTIVE: To compare LBR between fresh and FET cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 10,744 single autologous embryo transfer cycles that used a single cleavage stage embryo was performed. Multivariate analysis was performed to compare LBR between FET and fresh cycles, after correcting for various confounding factors. Sub-analysis was also performed in cycles using slow embryos. RESULTS: Both LBR (19.13% vs 14.13%) and clinical pregnancy (22.48% vs 16.25%) rates (CPR) were higher in the fresh cycle group (p < 0.00). Multivariate analysis for confounding factors also confirmed that women receiving a frozen-thawed embryo had a significantly lower LBR rate compared to those receiving a fresh embryo (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.86, p < 0.00). In the sub-analysis of 1,154 cycles using slow embryos, there was no statistical difference in LBR (6.40% vs 6.26%, p = 0.92) or CPR (8.10% vs 7.22%, p = 0.58) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows a lower LBR in FET cycles when compared to fresh cycles. Our results suggest that any potential gains in LBR due to improved embryo-endometrial synchrony following FET are lost, presumably due to freeze-thaw process-related embryo damage.