A E Habana1, S F Palter. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven,CT 06510, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze published randomized trials of ZIFT and ET via meta-analysis and compare the results with those of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database. DESIGN: Meta-analysis and comparison to SART data sets for 1991-1996. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENT(S): Patients from the literature with infertility, randomized to either tubal or uterine embryo transfer. INTERVENTION(S): All published articles in English were identified using an electronic database spanning January 1966 to December 1998 by keyword and text word searches, supplemented with a hand search through the references of original studies, review articles, and conference abstracts to identify randomized trials comparing ZIFT and IVF-ET. Additional data was obtained through correspondence with authors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were compared. Ectopic pregnancy rate was a secondary outcome measure. RESULT(S): Six randomized controlled trials including 548 cycles, 514 retrievals, and 388 transfers were reviewed. Demographic and stimulation and transfer details were comparable between the groups. Implantation and pregnancy rates did not differ significantly, and there was a trend toward increased risk of ectopic pregnancy with ZIFT. CONCLUSION(S): Published randomized trials suggest that there is no difference in implantation and pregnancy rates between women undergoing ZIFT and IVF-ET.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze published randomized trials of ZIFT and ET via meta-analysis and compare the results with those of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database. DESIGN: Meta-analysis and comparison to SART data sets for 1991-1996. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENT(S): Patients from the literature with infertility, randomized to either tubal or uterine embryo transfer. INTERVENTION(S): All published articles in English were identified using an electronic database spanning January 1966 to December 1998 by keyword and text word searches, supplemented with a hand search through the references of original studies, review articles, and conference abstracts to identify randomized trials comparing ZIFT and IVF-ET. Additional data was obtained through correspondence with authors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were compared. Ectopic pregnancy rate was a secondary outcome measure. RESULT(S): Six randomized controlled trials including 548 cycles, 514 retrievals, and 388 transfers were reviewed. Demographic and stimulation and transfer details were comparable between the groups. Implantation and pregnancy rates did not differ significantly, and there was a trend toward increased risk of ectopic pregnancy with ZIFT. CONCLUSION(S): Published randomized trials suggest that there is no difference in implantation and pregnancy rates between women undergoing ZIFT and IVF-ET.