4.6 Review

Should women receive luteal support following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 643-650

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmab011

Keywords

luteal support; natural cycle; FET; frozen; progesterone; hCG; IVF

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed whether luteal phase support (LPS) following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) improves reproductive outcomes. The results indicated that progesterone LPS was associated with higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates, while hCG administration for LPS did not show significant improvement. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.
BACKGROUND: Spontaneous ovulation during a natural menstrual cycle is frequently used for timing frozen embryo transfer (FET). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether or not women should receive luteal phase support (LPS) following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET). OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study whether the administration of LPS improves the reproductive outcome following NC-FET. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature published in Medline/PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from January 2000 until December 2020. We included all original English, peer-reviewed articles, irrespective of the study design. The search strategy included keywords related to NC-FET and luteal phase support. Studies reporting the results of artificial or stimulated FET cycles were excluded. OUTCOMES: Our systematic search generated 416 records. After screening, eight studies were included in the review and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies (n=858) used hCG and six studies (n=1507) used progesterone for luteal support. Four studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), whereas the other four were historic cohort studies. In a meta-analysis using a random effects model, hCG administration for LPS did not increase the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (two studies, odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). On the other hand, progesterone LPS was associated with a higher CPR (five studies, OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14-1.94), and a higher live birth rate (LBR) (three studies, OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.19-2.36). The association between progesterone LPS and the LBR remained significant after excluding non-randomised studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The available evidence indicates that progesterone administration for LPS is beneficial following NC-FET. There is no evidence to support the administration of hCG for LPS in these cases. Additional large RCTs are necessary to improve the quality of evidence and validate our findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available