Natural proliferative phase frozen embryo transfer—a new approach which may facilitate scheduling without hindering pregnancy outcomes
Authors: Mendes Godinho Catarina , Soares Sérgio Reis , Nunes Sofia Gouveia , Martínez Juan M Mascarós , Santos-Ribeiro Samuel 
Published: March 2024

STUDY QUESTION

How does a natural proliferative phase (NPP) strategy for frozen embryo transfer (FET) compare with the conventional artificial (AC) and natural (NC) endometrial preparation protocols in terms of live birth rates (LBR)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This study supports the hypothesis that, just as for NC, NPP-FET may be a superior alternative to AC in terms of LBR.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Although FETs are increasing worldwide, the optimal FET protocol is still largely controversial. Despite recent evidence supporting a possibly higher efficacy and safety of NC FETs, their widespread use is limited by the difficulties encountered during cycle monitoring and scheduling.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In this single center retrospective cohort study, we describe the NPP-FET protocol, in which vaginal progesterone is initiated during the proliferative phase as soon as an endometrium with a thickness of at least 7 mm is identified and ovulation is ruled out, regardless of mean diameter of the dominant follicle.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

For comparison, we considered all blastocyst stage FET cycles preformed at a private infertility center between January 2010 and June 2022, subdivided according to the following subgroups of endometrial preparation: AC, NPP, and NC. We performed multivariable generalized estimating equations regression analysis to account for the following potential confounding variables: oocyte age at retrieval, oocyte source (autologous without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) versus autologous with PGT-A versus donated), number of oocytes retrieved/donated, embryo developmental stage (Day 5 versus Day 6), number of embryos transferred, quality of the best embryo transferred, and year of treatment. The main outcome measure was LBR. The secondary outcomes included hCG positive, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates, and the following perinatal outcomes: first trimester bleeding, second/third trimester bleeding, preterm rupture of membranes, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD), and gestational age at delivery.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 5791 FET cycles were included in this analysis (2226 AC, 349 NPP, and 3216 NC). The LBR for FET was lower in the AC subgroup when compared to the NPP and NC (38.4%, 49.1%, and 45.2%, respectively; P &lt; 0.01 AC versus NPP and AC versus NC). The rates of miscarriage were also lower in the NPP and NC subgroups when compared to AC (19.7%, 25.0%, and 34.9%, respectively; P &lt; 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Considering perinatal outcomes, NPP-FET and NC were associated with a significantly lower first trimester bleeding compared to AC (17.3%, 14.7%, and 37.6%, respectively; P &lt; 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Additionally, NC was associated with a lower rate of GHD when compared with AC (8.6% versus 14.5%, P &lt; 0.01), while the rate following NPP-FET was 9.4%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study is limited by its retrospective design. Moreover, there was also a low number of patients in the NPP subgroup, which may have led the study to be underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences between the subgroups.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our study posits that the NPP-FET protocol may be an effective and safe alternative to both NC and AC, while still allowing for enhanced practicality in patient follow-up and FET scheduling. Further investigation on NPP-FET is warranted, with prospective studies including a larger and more homogeneous subsets of patients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by the IVI-RMA-Lisbon (2008-LIS-053-CG). The authors did not receive any funding for this study. The authors have no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.