Fresh vs. frozen embryo transfer: new approach to minimize the limitations of using national surveillance data for clinical research

被引:10
作者
Weiss, Marissa Steinberg [1 ,8 ]
Luo, Chongliang [2 ]
Zhang, Yujia [3 ,4 ]
Chen, Yong [5 ]
Kissin, Dmitry M. [3 ,4 ]
Satten, Glen A. [6 ,7 ]
Barnhart, Kurt T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Washington Univ, Div Publ Hlth Sci, Sch Med St Louis, St Louis, MO USA
[3] CDCP, Div Reprod Hlth, Atlanta, GA USA
[4] CDCP, Atlanta, GA USA
[5] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Biostat Epidemiol & Informat, Philadelphia, PA USA
[6] Emory Univ, Dept Gynecol & Obstet, Sch Med, Atlanta, GA USA
[7] Emory Univ, Dept Biostat & Bioinformat, Sch Publ Hlth, Atlanta, GA USA
[8] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Reprod Endocrinol & Infertil, 3701 Market St,Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
Frozen embryo transfer; fresh embryo transfer; real-world data; national database; modeling;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.10.021
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To assess the benefit of frozen vs. fresh elective single embryo transfer using traditional and novel methods of controlling for confounding.Design: Retrospective cohort study using data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System.Setting: Not applicable.Patient(s): A total of 44,750 women aged 20-35 years undergoing their first lifetime oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer in 2016- 2017, who had R4 embryos cryopreserved.Intervention(s): Fresh elective single embryo transfer and frozen elective single embryo transfer.Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary outcome was a singleton live birth. Secondary outcomes included rates of total live birth (singleton plus multiple gestations), twin live birth, clinical intrauterine gestation, total pregnancy loss, biochemical pregnancy, and ectopic pregnancy. Outcomes for infants included gestational age at delivery, birth weight, and being small for gestational age.Result(s): The eligibility criteria were met by 6,324 fresh and 2,318 frozen cycles. Patients undergoing fresh and frozen transfer had comparable mean age (30.69 [standard deviation {SD} 0.08] years vs. 31.06 [SD 0.08] years) and body mass index (24.76 [SD 0.20] vs. 25.65 [SD 0.15]); however, women in the frozen cohort created more embryos (8.1 [SD 0.12] vs. 6.8 [SD 0.08]). Singleton live birth rates in the fresh vs. frozen groups were 51.4% vs. 48.8% (risk ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.10). After adjustment with a log-linear regression model and propensity score analysis, the difference in singleton live birth rates remained nonsignificant (adjusted risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.14 and 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08, respectively). A novel dynamical model confirmed inherent fertility (probability of ever achieving a pregnancy) was balanced between groups (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI 0.78-1.95]). The per-cycle probability of singleton live birth was not different between groups (odds ratio 1.11 [95% CI 0.94-1.3]).Conclusion(s): In this retrospective cohort study of fresh vs. frozen elective single embryo transfer, there was no statistically significant difference in singleton live birth rate after adjustment using log-linear models and propensity score analysis. The successful application of a novel dynamical model, which incorporates multiple assisted reproductive technology cycles from the same woman as a surrogate for inherent fertility, offers a novel and complementary perspective for assessing interventions using national surveillance data. (Fertil Sterile 2023;119:186-94. (c) 2022 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.) El resumen esta disponible en Espanol al final del articulo.
引用
收藏
页码:186 / 194
页数:9
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1992, PUBL LAW 102 493
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2016, ASSISTED REPROD TECH
[3]  
Baker VL, 2019, ASSISTED REPROD TECH, P47
[4]   Impact of elective frozen vs. fresh embryo transfer strategies on cumulative live birth: Do deleterious effects still exist in normal & hyper responders? [J].
Boynukalin, Fazilet Kubra ;
Turgut, Niyazi Emre ;
Gultomruk, Meral ;
Ecemis, Selen ;
Yarkiner, Zalihe ;
Findikli, Necati ;
Bahceci, Mustafa .
PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (06)
[5]  
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019, ASSISTED REPROD TECH
[6]   Estimating and using propensity scores with partially missing data [J].
D'Agostino, RB ;
Rubin, DB .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 95 (451) :749-759
[7]   Comments on propensity score matching following multiple imputation [J].
de Vries, B. B. L. Penning ;
Groenwold, R. H. H. .
STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2016, 25 (06) :3066-3068
[8]   A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse [J].
Evers, J. L. H. .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2014, 29 (11) :2355-2355
[9]   Why Prospectively Randomized Clinical Trials Have Been Rare in Reproductive Medicine and Will Remain So? [J].
Gleicher, Norbert ;
Kushnir, Vitaly A. ;
Barad, David H. .
REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES, 2016, 23 (01) :6-10
[10]   TO BE OR NOT TO BE - THAT IS CONCEPTION - MANAGING INVITRO FERTILIZATION PROGRAMS [J].
KAPLAN, EH ;
HERSHLAG, A ;
DECHERNEY, AH ;
LAVY, G .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1992, 38 (09) :1217-1229