4.7 Article

The psychological impact more cycles of IVF with a treatment strategy of IVF failure after two or mild versus standard

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 22, Issue 9, Pages 2554-2558

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem171

Keywords

assisted reproduction; GnRH antagonist; single embryo transfer; stress; treatment failure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Failure of IVF treatment after a number of cycles can be devastating for couples. Although mild IVF strategies reduce the psychological burden of treatment, failure may cause feelings of regret that a more aggressive approach, including the transfer of two embryos, was not employed. In this study, the impact of treatment failure after two or more cycles on stress was studied, following treatment with a mild versus a standard treatment strategy. METHODS: Randomized controlled two-centre trial (ISRCTN35766970). Women were randomized to undergo mild ovarian stimulation (including GnRH antagonist co-treatment) and single embryo transfer (n = 197) or standard GnRH agonist long-protocol ovarian stimulation with double embryo transfer (n = 194). Participants completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale prior to commencing treatment and 1 week after the outcome of their final treatment cycle was known. Data from women who underwent two or more IVF cycles were subject to analysis (n = 253). RESULTS: Women who experienced treatment failure after standard IVF treatment presented more symptoms of depression 1 week after treatment termination compared with women who had undergone mild IVF: adjusted mean (+/- 95% confidence interval)= 10.2 ( +/- 2.3) versus 5.4 ( +/- 1.8), respectively, P = 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Failure of IVF treatment after a mild treatment strategy may result in fewer short-term symptoms of depression as compared to failure after a standard treatment strategy. These findings may further encourage the application of mild IVF treatment strategies in clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available