Volume 18, Issue 11 (November 2020)                   IJRM 2020, 18(11): 951-960 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Borkar A, Shah A, Gudi A, Homburg R. Outcome of mock embryo transfer before the first IVF cycle: A randomized control trial. IJRM 2020; 18 (11) :951-960
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-1611-en.html
Outcome of mock embryo transfer before the first IVF cycle: A randomized control trial
Amol Borkar * 1, Amit Shah2 , Anil Gudi2 , Roy Homburg2
1- Fertility Unit, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK. , dr.aborkar001@outlook.com
2- Fertility Unit, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract:   (2325 Views)
Background: There is a lack of agreement among fertility specialists with regard to the routine use of mock embryo transfer (MET) before each in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycle. While MET may be beneficial with previous difficult embryo transfer cases, its routine use before first IVF cycle has not been evaluated.
Objective: To find out the effect of MET before the first IVF cycle on clinical pregnancy rate.
Materials and Methods: This is a single-centre randomized controlled trial with a balanced randomization (1:1), carried out between November 2015 and October 2017, with 200 subjects at Homerton university hospital, London, randomized into either MET or control. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (detection of heart activity on the ultrasound scan), the secondary outcome measures were live birth rate, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates, difficult ETs, rate of blood or mucus on the catheter tip.
Results: No significant differences were observed in the baseline or cycle characteristics between the two groups. The clinical pregnancy rate was similar between the MET and control groups based on both intension to treat and per protocol analyses (p = 0.98, p = 0.92, respectively). Additionally, no significant difference was seen in the live birth rate in both groups on intension to treat and per protocol analyses (p = 0.67, p = 0.47), respectively.
Conclusion: Our study concludes that MET prior to first IVF cycle may not improve the success rate in young women without risk factors for a difficult embryo transfer.
Keywords: IVF, Mock embryo transfer, Pregnancy outcomes, Live birth.
Full-Text [PDF 300 kb]   (782 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (430 Views)  
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Assisted Reproductive Technologies
References
1. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK. Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril 2001; 76: 863-870. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02731-5]
2. Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA. Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1149-1153. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.5.1149] [PMID]
3. Singh N, Gupta P, Mittal S, Malhotra N. Correlation of technical difficulty during embryo transfer with rate of clinical pregnancy. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012; 5: 258-261. [DOI:10.4103/0974-1208.106337] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Kava-Braverman A, Martinez F, Rodriguez I, Alvarez M, Barri PN, Coroleu B. What is a difficult transfer? Analysis of 7,714 embryo transfers: the impact of maneuvers during embryo transfers on pregnancy rate and a proposal of objective assessment. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 657-663. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.020] [PMID]
5. Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour G. Dummy embryo transfer: a technique that minimizes the problems of embryo transfer and improves the pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 678-681. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)53829-1]
6. Sallam HN, Sadek SS. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 1042-1046. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(03)01009-4]
7. Cozzolino M, Vitagliano A, Di Giovanni MV, Lagana AS, Vitale SG, Blaganje M, et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: summary of the evidence and new perspectives. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36: 524-542. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.015] [PMID]
8. Brown J, Buckingham K, Buckett W, Abou-Setta AM. Ultrasound versus 'clinical touch' for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 3: Cd006107. 1-2. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006107.pub4]
9. Henne MB, Milki AA. Uterine position at real embryo transfer compared with mock embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 570-572. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deh116] [PMID]
10. Miller KL, Frattarelli JL. The pre-cycle blind mock embryo transfer is an inaccurate predictor of anticipated embryo transfer depth. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24: 77-82. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-006-9098-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Yang WJ, Lee RK, Su JT, Lin MH, Hwu YM. Uterine position change between mock and real embryo transfers. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 46: 162-165. [DOI:10.1016/S1028-4559(07)60011-4]
12. Katariya KO, Bates GW, Robinson RD, Arthur NJ, Propst AM. Does the timing of mock embryo transfer affect in vitro fertilization implantation and pregnancy rates? Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 1462-1464. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.057] [PMID]
13. Karimzade MA, Oskouian H, Ahmadi Sh, Oskouian L. Local injury to the endometrium on the day of oocyte retrieval has a negative impact on implantation in assisted reproductive cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 281: 499-503. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-009-1166-1] [PMID]
14. Torre A, Scheffer JB, Schönauer LM, Frydman N, Fanchin R. Mock embryo transfer does not affect uterine contractility. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 1343-1346. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.054] [PMID]
15. Leeton J, Trounson A, Jessup D, Wood C. The technique for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1982; 38: 156-161. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)46451-4]
16. Visser DS, Fourie FL, Kruger HF. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: effect on pregnancy outcome in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993; 10: 37-43. [DOI:10.1007/BF01204438] [PMID]
17. Tur-Kaspa I, Yuval Y, Bider D, Levron J, Shulman A, Dor J. Difficult or repeated sequential embryo transfers do not adversely affect in-vitro fertilization pregnancy rates or outcome. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 2452-2455. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/13.9.2452] [PMID]
18. Tomas C, Tikkinen K, Tuomivaara L, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. The degree of difficulty of embryo transfer is an independent factor for predicting pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2632-2635. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.10.2632] [PMID]
19. Alvero R, Hearns-Stokes RM, Catherino WH, Leondires MP, Segars JH. The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1848-1852. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deg359] [PMID]
20. Goudas VT, Hammitt DG, Damario MA, Session DR, Singh AP, Dumesic DA. Blood on the embryo transfer catheter is associated with decreased rates of embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy with the use of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 878-882. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00315-X]
21. Awonuga A, Nabi A, Govindbhai J, Birch H, Stewart B. Contamination of embryo transfer catheter and treatment outcome in in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998; 15: 198-201. [DOI:10.1023/A:1023000402789] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Wittenberger MD, Catherino WH, Armstrong AY. Role of embryo transfer in fellowship training. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 1014-1015. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.086] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb