Jie Li1, Yang Chen2, Anran Wang3, Haiying Zhang4. 1. The Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Family Planning Research Center, Nanning, 530021, China. lijie2012@126.com. 2. Department of Urology and Nephrology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China. 3. The Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Family Planning Research Center, Nanning, 530021, China. 4. The Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Family Planning Research Center, Nanning, 530021, China. yhzhang158@sina.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the efficacy of atosiban in improving pregnancy outcomes among patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) remains inconsistent. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI databases were searched using keywords such as 'atosiban', 'infertility', and 'ART'. Studies that explored the efficacy of atosiban in the field of ART for patients with embryo transfer (ET) were included if they evaluated pregnancy outcomes. Combing using subgroups and sensitivity analysis were conducted, and risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Six studies were included. Atosiban treatment could improve pregnancy outcomes for all patients undergoing ET, especially for the subgroups of patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF) (implantation rate: RR = 1.806, 95% CI = 1.473-2.215; clinical pregnancy rate: RR = 1.725, 95% CI = 1.394-2.135; live birth rate: RR = 2.141, 95% CI = 1.494-3.068), as shown by the comparison with placebo or no-treatment groups. However, no statistical significance was detected in subgroups of patients undergoing their first or second ET cycle. In addition, no significant differences were observed in positive pregnancy tests, miscarriage rates, multiple pregnancy rates, or ectopic pregnancy rates. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with atosiban has a positive effect on ART and embryo transfer procedure, especially for women undergoing their third or more ET cycle.
OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the efficacy of atosiban in improving pregnancy outcomes among patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) remains inconsistent. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI databases were searched using keywords such as 'atosiban', 'infertility', and 'ART'. Studies that explored the efficacy of atosiban in the field of ART for patients with embryo transfer (ET) were included if they evaluated pregnancy outcomes. Combing using subgroups and sensitivity analysis were conducted, and risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Six studies were included. Atosiban treatment could improve pregnancy outcomes for all patients undergoing ET, especially for the subgroups of patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF) (implantation rate: RR = 1.806, 95% CI = 1.473-2.215; clinical pregnancy rate: RR = 1.725, 95% CI = 1.394-2.135; live birth rate: RR = 2.141, 95% CI = 1.494-3.068), as shown by the comparison with placebo or no-treatment groups. However, no statistical significance was detected in subgroups of patients undergoing their first or second ET cycle. In addition, no significant differences were observed in positive pregnancy tests, miscarriage rates, multiple pregnancy rates, or ectopic pregnancy rates. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with atosiban has a positive effect on ART and embryo transfer procedure, especially for women undergoing their third or more ET cycle.