4.7 Article

A randomized clinical trial of endometrial perfusion with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in in vitro fertilization cycles: impact on endometrial thickness and clinical pregnancy rates

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 101, Issue 3, Pages 710-715

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.016

Keywords

Endometrial thickness; G-CSF; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; in vitro fertilization; pregnancy rates; randomized controlled trial

Funding

  1. Foundation for Reproductive Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate whether granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSG) affects endometrial thickness, implantation rates, and clinical pregnancy rates in routine, unselected IVF cycles. Design: Registered, individually randomized, two-group, parallel double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial. Setting: Academically affiliated private clinical and research center. Patient(s): 141 consecutive, unselected, consenting women with no history of renal disease, sickle cell disease, or malignancy who were undergoing IVF. Intervention(s): Sealed, numbered, opaque envelopes assigned 73 patients to receive G-CSF (Filgrastim, Amgen, 300 mu g/1.0 mL) and 68 to receive placebo (saline). Main Outcome Measure(s): Endometrial thickness, clinical pregnancy, and embryo implantation rates. Result(s): The mean age for the whole study group was 39.59 +/- 5.56 years (G-CSF: 39.79 +/- 5.13 years; placebo: 39.38 +/- 6.03 years). Endometrial thickness statistically significantly increased over the 5-day observation period for the whole group by approximately 1.36 mm. The increase in the G-CSF group was not statistically significantly different from the control group. Statistical models looking at treatment effects on clinical pregnancy and implantation rates demonstrated no effect of G-CSF treatment. There were no adverse events for either treatment group. Conclusion(s): In normal IVF patients, G-CSF does not affect endometrial thickness, implantation rates, or clinical pregnancy rates. Because these results were obtained in an older patient population, they may not necessarily apply to younger women.

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