Disease markers · 2022
The Effects of City Lockdown Policy on Frozen Embryo Transfer Outcome during COVID-19 Epidemic in Hubei Province, China.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Liao Huiqi, Sun Zhifeng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate between the corresponding period in 2019 and COVID-19 city lockdown period in 2020 in frozen embryo transfer (FET).
METHODS: In one single in vitro fertilization (IVF) center (Shiyan, Hubei province, China), a retrospective cohort analysis was conducted, with a sample size of 59 patients in the lockdown period (2020.1.23-2020.2.23, 2020 group) and 34 patients in the corresponding 2019 period (2019.1.23-2019.2.23, 2019 group). Implantation, biochemical and clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates were all measured.
RESULTS: Age, basal serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), basal serum luteinizing hormone (LH), basal serum E2, and serum total T were all comparable between the two groups. On the day of progesterone administration, endometrial thickness was similar (8.5 ± 1.3 vs. 8.2 ± 1.4, P = 0.356). The number of transferred blastocysts was not significantly different. The two groups had similar clinical pregnancy rate (61.8% vs. 61.0%, P > 0.05) and live birth rate (47.1% vs. 49.2%, P > 0.05), which did not significantly differ. Nonetheless, there was a significant difference in the cancelled cycle rate between the two groups (0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.043).
CONCLUSIONS: Lockdown period FET versus corresponding period FET outcome did not show any significant difference in terms of pregnancy rate and live birth rate between two groups of patients. Although there was no significant difference, in the 2020 group, the live birth rate was higher compared with that in the 2019 group. There was a significant difference in the rate of cancelled cycles due to the seal off control. In summary, artificial endometrial preparation is an appropriate protocol for special periods.
METHODS: In one single in vitro fertilization (IVF) center (Shiyan, Hubei province, China), a retrospective cohort analysis was conducted, with a sample size of 59 patients in the lockdown period (2020.1.23-2020.2.23, 2020 group) and 34 patients in the corresponding 2019 period (2019.1.23-2019.2.23, 2019 group). Implantation, biochemical and clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates were all measured.
RESULTS: Age, basal serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), basal serum luteinizing hormone (LH), basal serum E2, and serum total T were all comparable between the two groups. On the day of progesterone administration, endometrial thickness was similar (8.5 ± 1.3 vs. 8.2 ± 1.4, P = 0.356). The number of transferred blastocysts was not significantly different. The two groups had similar clinical pregnancy rate (61.8% vs. 61.0%, P > 0.05) and live birth rate (47.1% vs. 49.2%, P > 0.05), which did not significantly differ. Nonetheless, there was a significant difference in the cancelled cycle rate between the two groups (0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.043).
CONCLUSIONS: Lockdown period FET versus corresponding period FET outcome did not show any significant difference in terms of pregnancy rate and live birth rate between two groups of patients. Although there was no significant difference, in the 2020 group, the live birth rate was higher compared with that in the 2019 group. There was a significant difference in the rate of cancelled cycles due to the seal off control. In summary, artificial endometrial preparation is an appropriate protocol for special periods.