PURPOSE: Does transfer of supernatant embryo culture fluid (stimulation of endometrial embryo transfer - SEET) prior to vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer result in better clinical pregnancy and live birth rates than direct vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer? METHODS: This randomized controlled trial compared SEET group and direct transfer group (control) in 60 women undergoing vitrified warmed blastocyst transfers. The duration of the study was 3 years. The patients were undergoing vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer at university level infertility centre. Sixty women were randomized to SEET (n = 30) or control (n = 30). RESULTS: Data was available for analysis from all the 30 women in the SEET group and 30 women in the control group. There were no drop outs in the trial. The implantation rate was significantly lower in the SEET group compared to the control group (27 vs. 44 %, P = 0.018). The clinical pregnancy rates were similar in both the groups (47 vs. 53 %) but the live birth rate was also significantly lower in SEET group (23 vs. 50 %, P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: The sample size based on clinical pregnancy rates was small and hence not adequately powered to detect differences in live birth rates. Lack of blinding leading to possible bias cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an improvement in clinical pregnancy rate following SEET in vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer compared to direct transfer.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Does transfer of supernatant embryo culture fluid (stimulation of endometrial embryo transfer - SEET) prior to vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer result in better clinical pregnancy and live birth rates than direct vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer? METHODS: This randomized controlled trial compared SEET group and direct transfer group (control) in 60 women undergoing vitrified warmed blastocyst transfers. The duration of the study was 3 years. The patients were undergoing vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer at university level infertility centre. Sixty women were randomized to SEET (n = 30) or control (n = 30). RESULTS: Data was available for analysis from all the 30 women in the SEET group and 30 women in the control group. There were no drop outs in the trial. The implantation rate was significantly lower in the SEET group compared to the control group (27 vs. 44 %, P = 0.018). The clinical pregnancy rates were similar in both the groups (47 vs. 53 %) but the live birth rate was also significantly lower in SEET group (23 vs. 50 %, P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: The sample size based on clinical pregnancy rates was small and hence not adequately powered to detect differences in live birth rates. Lack of blinding leading to possible bias cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an improvement in clinical pregnancy rate following SEET in vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer compared to direct transfer.