Search

Purpose: To estimate the contribution of cryopreservation to the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) after law modification in Italy in the era of vitrification and freeze-all. Methods: The Italian National Registry performed a cycle-based data collection. Nine Italian IVF clinics were involved incorporating a total of 10,260 fresh cycles performed between January 2015 and April 2016 resulting in 9273 oocyte retrievals and 3266 subsequent warming cycles from the same oocyte retrievals performed up to December 2016. Mean female age was 37 ± 4.3 years. Primary outcome measure was CLBR per oocyte retrieval. Confounding factors were tested in multivariate regression analysis, and the relative impact of cryopreservation to the CLBR in different patient categories was calculated. Results: CLBR per oocyte retrieval was 32.6%, 26.5%, 18.7%, 13.0%, and 5.5% for women younger than 36, aged 36–39, 40–41, and older than 41 years, respectively. The total relative contribution of oocyte/embryo cryopreservation was 40.6% (95% CI 38.41–42.75). An association between maternal age, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, cryopreservation, and cumulative live birth was shown. When adjusted for confounders, a 2.3-fold increase was observed in the chance of live birth when cryopreservation was performed (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.99–2.56). In high responder patients (> 15 oocytes retrieved) where freeze-all was applied in 67.6% of cycles to avoid the risk of hyper stimulation syndrome, the relative contribution of vitrification to the CLBR was 80.6%. Conclusions: Cryopreservation is essential in IVF and should always be available to patients to optimize success rates. Multicentric, cycle-based data analyses are crucial to provide infertile couples, clinicians, and regulatory bodies with accurate information on IVF effectiveness including fresh and cryopreserved cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the usefulness of pituitary block with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists during intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, with conflicting results.Objective: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs was to evaluate the effectiveness of GnRH antagonist administration as an intervention to improve the success of IUI cycles.Search Strategy: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Sciencedirect) and clinical registers were searched from their inception until October 2017.Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of infertile women undergoing one or more IUI stimulated cycles with GnRH antagonists compared with a control group.Data Collection and Analysis: The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Pooled results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean differences with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Sources of heterogeneity were investigated through sensitivity and subgroups analysis. The body of evidence was rated using GRADE methodology. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's tests.Main Results: Fifteen RCTs were included (3253 IUI cycles, 2345 participants). No differences in OPR/LBR (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.57, P = 0.44) and CPR (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.97-1.69, P = 0.08) were found. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not provide statistical changes in pooled results. The body of evidence was rated as low (GRADE 2/4). No publication bias was detected.Conclusion: Pituitary block with GnRH antagonists does not improve OPR/LBR and CPR in women undergoing IUI cycles.Tweetable Abstract: Pituitary block with GnRH antagonists does not improve the success of IUI cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original article unfortunately contained a mistake. The names of the collaborators were captured as authors of the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]