AJOG Global Reports (Nov 2022)
Endometrial preparation and maternal and obstetrical outcomes after frozen blastocyst transferAJOG Global Reports at a Glance
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two types of endometrial preparation protocols are used for frozen embryo transfers in current practice: hormone replacement and the natural cycle. Endometrial preparation in the natural cycle reportedly increases the chances of live birth and decreases early pregnancy loss compared with that in the hormone replacement cycle. However, the influence of endometrial preparation on maternal and neonatal health remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the differences between hormone replacement cycle and natural cycle influence perinatal outcomes and risk of congenital anomalies in frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer fetuses or births. STUDY DESIGN: Perinatal outcomes and congenital abnormalities were compared between the natural and hormone replacement cycles. According to the timing of ovulation, frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers in the natural cycle were classified into 2 patterns: on day 4.5 (ovulation 4.5) or day 5 (ovulation 5.0) after ovulation. When the serum luteinizing hormone level was not increased on the day of the trigger, a single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer was performed on day 7 after the trigger (ovulation 5.0). When the luteinizing hormone level was slightly increased on the day of trigger, single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer was performed on day 6 after the trigger (ovulation 5.0). In total, 67,018 cycles (ovulation 4.5, 29,705 cycles; ovulation 5.0, 31,995 cycles; hormone replacement, 5318 cycles) of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer between January 2008 and December 2017 at Kato Ladies Clinic were retrospectively analyzed. During the study period, embryo cryopreservation was performed using a vitrification method in all cycles. RESULTS: Hormone replacement cycles were associated with a higher occurrence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.66–2.81) and placenta accreta (adjusted odds ratio, 4.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.64–10.44) compared with the natural cycle. The risks of cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.78–2.18), preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–1.93), and low birthweight (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.18–1.73) were also higher for hormone replacement cycles. No significant difference in the risk of congenital anomalies was observed between the 2 cycles. CONCLUSION: The risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placenta accreta, cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, and low birthweight was higher in hormone replacement cycles than in natural cycles, whereas the risk of congenital anomalies was similar between both cycles. Further follow-up is needed to investigate these risks and to explore alternative endometrial preparation methods.
