4.7 Review

Preparation of the Endometrium for Frozen Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.688237

关键词

frozen embryo transfer; hormone replacement treatment cycle; natural cycle; true natural cycle; modified natural cycle; individualized approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current evidence suggests that natural cycle may be superior to hormone replacement treatment, while interpersonal differences in implantation window and serum progesterone levels at different transfer timings could impact reproductive outcomes.
Despite the worldwide increase in frozen embryo transfer, the search for the best protocol to prime endometrium continues. Well-designed trials comparing various frozen embryo transfer protocols in terms of live birth rates, maternal, obstetric and neonatal outcome are urgently required. Currently, low-quality evidence indicates that, natural cycle, either true natural cycle or modified natural cycle, is superior to hormone replacement treatment protocol. Regarding warmed blastocyst transfer and frozen embryo transfer timing, the evidence suggests the 6(th) day of progesterone start, LH surge+6 day and hCG+7 day in hormone replacement treatment, true natural cycle and modified natural cycle protocols, respectively. Time corrections, due to inter-personal differences in the window of implantation or day of vitrification (day 5 or 6), should be explored further. Recently available evidence clearly indicates that, in hormone replacement treatment and natural cycles, there might be marked inter-personal variation in serum progesterone levels with an impact on reproductive outcomes, despite the use of the same dose and route of progesterone administration. The place of progesterone rescue protocols in patients with low serum progesterone levels one day prior to warmed blastocyst transfer in hormone replacement treatment and natural cycles is likely to be intensively explored in near future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据