Comparison of luteal phase support regimens in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles from comprehensive chromosome screening

2013 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. S298
Author(s):  
N. Mathur ◽  
M.L. Uhler ◽  
E.C. Feinberg
Keyword(s):  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Luteal Phase ◽  
Frozen Embryo Transfer ◽  
Luteal Phase Support ◽  
Comprehensive Chromosome Screening

What is the optimal luteal support in assisted reproductive technology?

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie F. Wang ◽  
Leif Bungum ◽  
Sven O. Skouby
Keyword(s):  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Luteal Phase ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Oocyte Retrieval ◽  
Frozen Embryo Transfer ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Luteal Support ◽  
Luteal Phase Support ◽  
Large Effort

Abstract The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use. A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety. The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test. So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT’s are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.

GnRHa for trigger and luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer – A proof of concept study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-287
Author(s):  
Itai Bar Hava ◽  
Hadar Yafee ◽  
Yeela Omer ◽  
Peter Humaidan ◽  
Hadas Ganer Herman
Keyword(s):  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Luteal Phase ◽  
Frozen Embryo Transfer ◽  
Natural Cycle ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Luteal Phase Support ◽  
Concept Study

Luteal phase support in fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 101838
Author(s):  
Emre Pabuçcu ◽  
Recai Pabuçcu ◽  
Timur Gürgan ◽  
Erol Tavmergen
Keyword(s):  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Luteal Phase ◽  
Frozen Embryo Transfer ◽  
Luteal Phase Support

scholarly journals Effect of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone on pregnancy outcomes in natural frozen embryo transfer cycles: A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-152
Author(s):  
Aeran Seol ◽  
Yoo Jin Shim ◽  
Sung Woo Kim ◽  
Seul Ki Kim ◽  
Jung Ryeol Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Luteal Phase ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Frozen Embryo Transfer ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Luteal Phase Support ◽  
Vaginal Progesterone ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support (LPS) on the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) in natural frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles via a meta-analysis.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies that met our selection criteria. Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library) were searched between January 2017 and May 2017. Studies were selected according to predefined inclusion criteria and meta-analyzed using R software version 2.14.2. The main outcome measure was CPR.Results: A total of 18 studies were reviewed and assessed for eligibility. One RCT (n=435) and three retrospective studies (n=3,033) met the selection criteria. In a meta-analysis of the selected studies, we found no significant difference in the CPR (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60–1.55) between the vaginal progesterone and control groups. An analysis of the two retrospective cohort studies that reported the live birth rate (LBR) following FET showed a significantly higher LBR in the vaginal progesterone group (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.21–2.46). A subgroup meta-analysis of FET conducted 5 days after injection of human chorionic gonadotropin showed no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the CPR (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.90–1.55) or miscarriage rate (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.36–1.47).Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis of the currently available literature suggest that LPS with vaginal progesterone in natural FET cycles does not improve the CPR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document