Modern embryo transfer catheters and pregnancy outcome: a prospective randomized trial

被引:11
作者
McIlveen, M
Lok, FD
Pritchard, J
Lashen, H
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sect Reprod & Dev Med, Assisted Concept Unit, Sheffield S10 2SF, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Sheffield, Dept Reprod Med, Sheffield S10 2SF, S Yorkshire, England
关键词
catheter; embryo transfer; IVF; pregnancy rate; randomized controlled trial;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.06.018
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: Embryo transfer (ET) is the final crucial step in IVF treatment. The type of catheter used can affect the pregnancy rate (PR). In this prospective, randomized trial we compared the clinical PR between the Wallace and the Cook K-Jet embryo transfer catheters. Design: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. Setting: A National Health Service Assisted Reproduction Unit. Patient(s): One hundred fifty women undergoing a fresh ET. Age more than 40 years, a high basal FSH, a previous difficult ET, or more than six previous ETs were the exclusion criteria. Intervention(s): Women undergoing a fresh ET were randomized at the time of ET to either the Cook K-Jet or Wallace embryo transfer catheter. The randomization was stratified according to age and the number of previous ETs. Main Outcome Measure(s): Clinical PR. Result(s): There was no significant difference in the clinical PR between the Wallace and the Cook catheters (22/75 [29.3%] and 23/75 [30.6%], relative risk [RR]: 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.58-1.58]). Conclusion(s): There is no significant difference in the PRs achieved by modern, soft, double-lumen ET catheters. (Fertil Steril (R) 2005;84:996-1000. (c) 2005 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
引用
收藏
页码:996 / 1000
页数:5
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]   Cook versus Edwards-Wallace: Are there differences in flexible catheters? [J].
Boone, WR ;
Johnson, JE ;
Blackhurst, DM ;
Crane, MM .
JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 2001, 18 (01) :15-17
[2]   A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer [J].
Buckett, WM .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2003, 80 (04) :1037-1041
[3]   Transfer technique and catheter choice influence the incidence of transcervical embryo expulsion and the outcome of IVF [J].
Ghazzawi, IM ;
Al-Hasani, S ;
Karaki, R ;
Souso, S .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1999, 14 (03) :677-682
[4]   Blood on the embryo transfer catheter is associated with decreased rates of embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy with the use of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer [J].
Goudas, VT ;
Hammitt, DG ;
Damario, MA ;
Session, DR ;
Singh, AP ;
Dumesic, DA .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 1998, 70 (05) :878-882
[5]   A prospective randomized comparison of the Wallace catheter and the Cook Echo-Tip® catheter for ultrasound-guided embryo transfer [J].
Karande, V ;
Hazlett, D ;
Vietzke, M ;
Gleicher, N .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2002, 77 (04) :826-830
[6]   A randomized controlled trial of a soft double lumen embryo transfer catheter versus a firm single lumen catheter: significant improvements in pregnancy rates [J].
McDonald, JA ;
Norman, RJ .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (06) :1502-1506
[7]   Training of providers in embryo transfer: what is the minimum number of transfers required for proficiency? [J].
Papageorgiou, TC ;
Hearns-Stokes, RM ;
Leondires, MP ;
Miller, BT ;
Chakraborty, P ;
Cruess, D ;
Segars, J .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2001, 16 (07) :1415-1419
[8]   Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Sallam, HN ;
Sadek, SS .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2003, 80 (04) :1042-1046
[9]   The degree of difficulty of embryo transfer is an independent factor for predicting pregnancy [J].
Tomás, C ;
Tikkinen, K ;
Tuomivaara, L ;
Tapanainen, JS ;
Martikainen, H .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (10) :2632-2635
[10]   The impact of the embryo transfer catheter on the pregnancy rate in IVF [J].
van Weering, HGI ;
Schats, R ;
McDonnell, J ;
Vink, JM ;
Vermeiden, JPW ;
Hompes, PGA .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (03) :666-670