胚胎移植
胚泡移植
胚泡
医学
流产
胚胎
体外受精
男科
回顾性队列研究
优势比
活产
妇科
怀孕
妊娠率
人类受精
胚胎发生
生物
内科学
解剖
遗传学
作者
Mengxia Ji,Ling Zhang,Xiaohua Fu,Wenjie Xie,Xiangli Wu,Jing Shu
摘要
Abstract Aim To explore whether sequential embryo transfer benefits patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF) undergoing frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Methods We included 311 patients with a history of RIF in this retrospective study. We did sequential transfers with a cleavage embryo on day 3 and a blastocyst on day 5 in 77 patients; blastocyst transfers with two blastocysts on day 5 in 80 patients; and cleavage embryo transfers with two cleavage embryos on day 3 in 154 patients. We compared clinical outcomes between the three groups. Results The clinical pregnancy rate was comparable between the blastocyst transfer group (48.8%), the sequential transfer group(48.1%) and the cleavage embryo transfer group (48.1%). There was no statistically significant difference found ( p > 0.05). The ongoing pregnancy and multipregnancy rates were also comparable between the three groups ( p > 0.05). The early miscarriage rate was significantly higher in the sequential transfer group (32.4%) compared with the blastocyst group (12.8%) and the cleavage embryo group (12.2%) ( p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for confounders, there was no significant difference in early miscarriage rates in the sequential transfer group compared with the blastocyst group (odds ratio [OR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–9.24; p = 0.07) and the cleavage embryo group (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 0.94–8.06; p = 0.08). Conclusions Sequential embryo transfer failed to improve clinical outcomes for patients with RIF.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI