The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2015
Zygote intrafallopian tube transfer versus intrauterine cleavage or blastocyst stage transfer after intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in patients with repeated implantation failure: A prospective follow-up study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shahrokh Tehraninejad Ensieh, Azimi Nekoo Elham, Ghaffari Firouzeh, Hafezi Maryam, Karimian Leila, Arabipoor Arezoo
Аннотация
AIM: This study aimed to compare the outcomes between zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) with intrauterine day-3 (cleavage stage) embryo transfer and intrauterine day-5 (blastocyst stage) embryo transfer in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective study was performed at Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, between January 2012 and January 2014. Two hundred fifty women with more than three unexplained implantation failures were divided non-randomly into three groups according to embryonic age and methods used as follows: (i) intrauterine cleavage-stage embryo transfer (n = 100); (ii) intrauterine blastocyst-stage embryo transfer (n = 50); and (iii) ZIFT (n = 100). Implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates were our main outcomes.
RESULTS: Patients' characteristics and ovarian response were comparable among the three groups. Implantation rate (56.1% vs 27.9%) was significantly higher in the blastocyst group as compared to the ZIFT group; however, clinical pregnancy rate (38% vs 23%) was not statistically significantly different between the two groups, but due to the significantly higher miscarriage rate (34.7% vs 5.3%) in the ZIFT group, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the blastocyst group (P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage groups in terms of implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates.
CONCLUSION: We do not recommend the use of the ZIFT procedure for patients with repeated implantation failures. It seems that replication of cleavage- or blastocyst-stage embryo transfer is more efficient and affordable.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective study was performed at Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, between January 2012 and January 2014. Two hundred fifty women with more than three unexplained implantation failures were divided non-randomly into three groups according to embryonic age and methods used as follows: (i) intrauterine cleavage-stage embryo transfer (n = 100); (ii) intrauterine blastocyst-stage embryo transfer (n = 50); and (iii) ZIFT (n = 100). Implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates were our main outcomes.
RESULTS: Patients' characteristics and ovarian response were comparable among the three groups. Implantation rate (56.1% vs 27.9%) was significantly higher in the blastocyst group as compared to the ZIFT group; however, clinical pregnancy rate (38% vs 23%) was not statistically significantly different between the two groups, but due to the significantly higher miscarriage rate (34.7% vs 5.3%) in the ZIFT group, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the blastocyst group (P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage groups in terms of implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates.
CONCLUSION: We do not recommend the use of the ZIFT procedure for patients with repeated implantation failures. It seems that replication of cleavage- or blastocyst-stage embryo transfer is more efficient and affordable.