Neha Palo Chandel1, Vidya V Bhat1, B S Bhat1, Sidharth S Chandel2. 1. Radhakrishna Multispecialty Hospital and IVF Center, Sunrise Tower, Girinagar, Bengaluru, 560085 India. 2. JLN Hospital and Research Center, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Advanced fertilization techniques like frozen embryo transfer (FET) and assisted reproductive technology have become popular and commonly used methods to treat patients suffering from infertility. Incidences of infertility are on a rise due to increased representation of females in the work place, delay in marriages, stress, and ignorance. METHODS: We performed this prospective therapeutic study to compare FET and fresh embryo transfer in the treatment of infertility in terms of conception rate, patient acceptance, complications, and patient's compliance. A prospective screening therapeutic study on 108 patients, from September 2013 to September 2014 in Karnataka, India, randomized the patients into 2 groups (n = 54), Group-I treated with day-3 FET while Group-II was treated with fresh embryo transfer, after performing ICSI. RESULTS: In 108 patients, 45 % patients were within 35 years of age, 35 % were in the age group 35-39. Significantly, 22 (40.75 %) patients treated with FET conceived (P = 0.022), whereas 16 (29.63 %) patients treated with fresh embryo transfer conceived (P = 0.59). DISCUSSION: There is limited published literature from the subcontinent, comparing techniques like FET and embryo transfers in the treatment of infertility. Awareness and economic reforms must be formulated in India to facilitate individuals facing infertility problems to conceive. CONCLUSION:FET has better and significant conception rates compared to fresh embryo transfers. FET shares an advantage of providing good quality embryos for future and subsequent implantations in cases of failure. Patient counseling and motivation play a pivotal role in the success of therapeutic procedure.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Advanced fertilization techniques like frozen embryo transfer (FET) and assisted reproductive technology have become popular and commonly used methods to treat patients suffering from infertility. Incidences of infertility are on a rise due to increased representation of females in the work place, delay in marriages, stress, and ignorance. METHODS: We performed this prospective therapeutic study to compare FET and fresh embryo transfer in the treatment of infertility in terms of conception rate, patient acceptance, complications, and patient's compliance. A prospective screening therapeutic study on 108 patients, from September 2013 to September 2014 in Karnataka, India, randomized the patients into 2 groups (n = 54), Group-I treated with day-3 FET while Group-II was treated with fresh embryo transfer, after performing ICSI. RESULTS: In 108 patients, 45 % patients were within 35 years of age, 35 % were in the age group 35-39. Significantly, 22 (40.75 %) patients treated with FET conceived (P = 0.022), whereas 16 (29.63 %) patients treated with fresh embryo transfer conceived (P = 0.59). DISCUSSION: There is limited published literature from the subcontinent, comparing techniques like FET and embryo transfers in the treatment of infertility. Awareness and economic reforms must be formulated in India to facilitate individuals facing infertility problems to conceive. CONCLUSION: FET has better and significant conception rates compared to fresh embryo transfers. FET shares an advantage of providing good quality embryos for future and subsequent implantations in cases of failure. Patient counseling and motivation play a pivotal role in the success of therapeutic procedure.
Authors: A Nyboe Andersen; V Goossens; S Bhattacharya; A P Ferraretti; M S Kupka; J de Mouzon; K G Nygren Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2009-02-18 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: J Mandelbaum; J Belaïsch-Allart; A M Junca; J M Antoine; M Plachot; S Alvarez; M O Alnot; J Salat-Baroux Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Eric Scott Sills; Laura J McLoughlin; Marc G Genton; David J Walsh; Graham D Coull; Anthony P H Walsh Journal: J Ovarian Res Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 4.234