Search

Abstract Background Plenty of studies explored the most optimal treatment protocol for infertile women with adenomyosis in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) /intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), however, there is still no consensus on which treatment protocol is ideal for these women at present. So, we conducted this study comparing the pregnancy outcomes in infertile women with ultrasound-diagnosed adenomyosis who underwent GnRH antagonist protocol with freeze-all strategy or long-acting GnRH agonist protocol. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study and a propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis including 282 women diagnosed with adenomyosis undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle from January 2016 to July 2021 at the Assisted Reproduction Center, Northwest Women’s and Children’s Hospital, China. The patients were divided into two groups: the GnRH antagonist protocol with freeze-all strategy (n = 168) and the long-acting GnRH agonist protocol with fresh embryo transfer (n = 114) according their treatment protocols. The primary outcome was live birth rate. Cumulative live birth rate was also calculated. Results After adjusting for confounders, clinical pregnancy rate (49.40% vs 64.04%; odds ratio (OR) 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 2.37; P = 0.358), live birth rate (36.90% vs 45.61%; OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.61 to 2.00, P = 0.753) and cumulative live birth rate (51.79% vs 64.04%; OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.74, P = 0.796) were not significantly different between the GnRH antagonist protocol with freeze-all strategy and long-acting GnRH agonist protocol. Similar results were conducted in PSM analysis with clinical pregnancy rate (46.48% vs 60.56%; OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.34; P = 0.321), live birth rate (32.39% vs 45.07%; OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.63 to 2.72, P = 0.463) and cumulative live birth rate (54.90% vs 60.60%; OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.74, P = 0.958). Conclusions For infertile women with adenomyosis, these two treatment protocols resulted in similar pregnancy outcomes. Larger, prospective studies are needed in the future.

Abstract Background The evaluation of embryo morphology may be inaccurate. A euploid prediction model is needed to provide the best and individualized counseling about embryo selection based on patients and embryo characteristics. Methods Our objective was to develop a euploid-prediction model for evaluating blastocyst embryos, based on data from a large cohort of patients undergoing pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This retrospective, single-center cohort study included data from 1610 blastocysts which were performed PGT-A with known genetic outcomes. The study population was divided into the training and validation cohorts in a 3:1 ratio. The performance of the euploid-prediction model was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). In addition, a nomogram was drawn to provide quantitative and convenient tools in predicting euploid. Results We developed a reliable euploid-prediction model and can directly assess the probability of euploid with the AUC (95%CI) of 0.859 (0.834,0.872) in the training cohort, and 0.852 (0.831,0.879) in the validation cohort, respectively. The euploid-prediction model showed sensitivities of 0.903 and specificities of 0.578. Conclusions The euploid-prediction model is a reliable prediction model and can directly assess the probability of euploid.

Abstract Background The ideal protocols of endometrial preparation for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients are lacking and need further declaration. Our objective was to compare the clinical outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) with and without pretreatment gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in PCOS patients. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the live birth rate between patients who underwent FET with hormone replacement treatment (HRT) and patients with GnRHa pretreatment (GnRHa + HRT). Patients using GnRHa + HRT (n = 514) were matched with 514 patients using HRT. Results The live birth rate was higher in the GnRHa + HRT group compared with the HRT group with no significant difference (60.12% vs 56.03%, p = 0.073). The clinical pregnancy rate (75.29% vs 70.62%), miscarriage rate (14.20% vs 13.81%) and ectopic pregnancy rate (0.39% vs 0.19%) were similar between the two groups. The preterm birth rate in GnRHa + HRT was higher than HRT (20.23% vs 13.04%). No difference was found in live birth between GnRHa +HRT and HRT before adjusting for covariates (crude OR 1.22, 95%CI, 0.99–1.51, p = 0.062) and after PSM (OR 1.47, 95%CI, 0.99–2.83, p = 0.068). In addition, there is a marginally difference after adjusting for covariates (aOR 1.56, 95%CI, 1.001–2.41, p = 0.048), this finding with p-value close to 0.05 represent insufficient empirical evidence. Similar results were obtained after propensity score matching in the entire cohort. Conclusions GnRHa pretreatment could not improve the live birth rate in women with PCOS.