Comparing NC- and AC-FET with method specific LPS
Description
The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of AC-FET with that of NC-FET in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with method-specific LPS administered in the FET methods. Patients undergoing NC- and AC-FET with method-specific LPS had comparable ongoing pregnancy rates as well as total pregnancy loss rates
Files
Steps to reproduce
This retrospective cohort study of vitrified-warmed blastocyst FET was performed at a private IVF with FET cycles consecutively performed between December 2021 and November 2022 grouped according to the endometrial preparation method used, the NC (NC-group) or AC (AC-group) method. At the IVF centre, all FET were from freeze-all-IVF cycles, with all FET before November 2019 performed as AC-FET. The study was performed according to the guidelines provided by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Akdeniz, with all patients providing informed consent before commencing with treatment. FET cycles were excluded from the groups according to the following primary exclusion criteria: early pregnancy care was not provided in Turkey, cryopreserved blastocysts were received from another IVF centre, and degeneration resulted in no blastocysts being available for transfer. The endometrial preparation method used was at the discretion of clinicians in consultation with patients. FET cycles were excluded from the NC-FET group and AC-FET group according to the following secondary exclusion criteria: female age at oocyte retrieval >42 years, female body mass index (BMI) at FET of <18 or >40 kg/m2, poor quality primary blastocyst transferred (AC, BC, CC, CA, and CB Gardner scores, irrespective of expansion score), and AC-FET with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) programming.