4.4 Article

Endometrial compaction does not predict live birth rate in single euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-02043-7

关键词

Endometrial compaction; Endometrial thickness; Frozen embryo transfer; Endometrial receptivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that in medicated single euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles, the majority did not show endometrial compaction and endometrial compaction was not associated with live birth rates or spontaneous abortion rates.
Purpose To evaluate whether endometrial compaction using sequential transvaginal ultrasound is associated with improved live birth rates in medicated single euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Methods Prospective observational cohort study at a private fertility clinic. Patients who underwent FETs between January and December 2018 were assessed for inclusion. The change in endometrial thickness between the end of the estrogen phase and the day before embryo transfer, measured by sequential transvaginal ultrasound, was used to categorize cycles with compaction (>= 5%), no change, or expansion (>= 5%). FET cycle outcomes were then compared between groups. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes include clinical pregnancy rate and rate of spontaneous abortion. Results Of the 259 single euploid medicated FETs performed during the study period, only 43/259 (16.6%) of the cycles demonstrated >= 5% compaction, whereas 152/259 (58.7%) expanded and 64/259 (24.7%) were unchanged. Live birth rates did not differ between cycles with compaction (58.1%), no change (54.7%), or expansion (58.6%), p = 0.96. Clinical pregnancy and spontaneous abortion rates were also similar between groups. Conclusion The vast majority of cycles did not demonstrate endometrial compaction. Endometrial compaction is not associated with live birth rate or spontaneous abortion rate in medicated single euploid FETs in this cohort.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据