4.7 Article

Increase of success rate for women undergoing embryo transfer by transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled study

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 96, Issue 4, Pages 912-916

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.1093

Keywords

Acupuncture; transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS); pregnancy rate (PR); in vitro fertilization (IVF); embryo transfer (ET); intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of People's Republic of China [81072979, 30973790]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on pregnancy rates (PR) in women undergoing ET. Design: Prospective, randomized, single-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial. Setting: Research and laboratory facilities. Patient(s): A total of 309 patients, less than 45 years old, undergoing cryopreservation embryos transplant or fresh cycle IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Intervention(s): The subjects were randomly allocated to three groups: mock TEAS treatment: 30 minutes after ET (group I, n = 99); single TEAS treatment: 30 minutes after ET (group II, n = 110); and double TEAS treatments: 24 hours before ET and 30 minutes after ET (group III, n = 100). Main Outcome Measure(s): Clinical PR, embryos implantation rate, live birth rate. Result(s): The clinical PR, embryos implantation rate, and live birth rate of group I (29.3%, 15.0%, and 21.2%, respectively) were significantly lower than those in group II (42.7%, 25.7%, and 37.3%, respectively) and group III (50.0%, 25.9%, and 42.0%, respectively). Conclusion(s): Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, especially double TEAS, significantly improved the clinical outcome of ET. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011; 96: 912-6. (C)2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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