Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Frozen thawed embryo transfer (FET) is a cost- effective adjunct to IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. In order to optimize treatment outcome, FET should be carried out during a period of optimal endometrial receptivity. To optimize implanta...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Groenewoud Eva R, Macklon Nick S, Cohlen Ben J
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2012-09-01
Series:BMC Women's Health
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/12/27
id doaj-265e52e1a1e443b29837330fdd4c9bcf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-265e52e1a1e443b29837330fdd4c9bcf2020-11-25T01:39:17ZengBMCBMC Women's Health1472-68742012-09-011212710.1186/1472-6874-12-27Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)Groenewoud Eva RMacklon Nick SCohlen Ben J<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Frozen thawed embryo transfer (FET) is a cost- effective adjunct to IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. In order to optimize treatment outcome, FET should be carried out during a period of optimal endometrial receptivity. To optimize implantation several methods for endometrium preparation have been proposed. In natural cycle FET (NC-FET), the endometrium develops under endogenous hormonal stimulation. The development of the dominant follicle and endometrium is monitored by ultrasound and FET is timed after triggering ovulation induction or determination of the spontaneous LH surge. In an artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) estrogens and progesterone are administered to prepare the endometrium for implantation. While the currently available data show no significant difference in pregnancy rates between these methods, well designed randomized controlled trials are lacking. Moreover there is little literature on difference in cancellation rates, cost-efficiency and adverse events.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>In this randomized, multi-centre, non-inferiority trial we aim to test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus AC-FET. The primary outcome will be live birth rate per embryo transfer procedure. Secondary outcomes will be ongoing and clinical pregnancy rate, cancellation rate, (serious) adverse events and cost-efficiency. Based on a live birth rate of 20% and a minimal clinical important difference of 7,5% (one-sided alpha 2,5%, beta 20%) a total of 1150 patients will be needed. Analyzes will be performed using both per protocol as well as intention to treat analyses.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This prospective, randomized, non –inferiority trial aims to address the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus patients undergoing AC-FET. Moreover it addresses cost-efficiency as well as the perceived burden of both treatments.</p> <p>Trial register</p> <p>Netherlands trial register (NTR): 1586</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/12/27
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Groenewoud Eva R
Macklon Nick S
Cohlen Ben J
spellingShingle Groenewoud Eva R
Macklon Nick S
Cohlen Ben J
Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
BMC Women's Health
author_facet Groenewoud Eva R
Macklon Nick S
Cohlen Ben J
author_sort Groenewoud Eva R
title Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
title_short Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
title_full Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
title_fullStr Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
title_full_unstemmed Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
title_sort cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. a non-inferiority trial.(antarctica trial)
publisher BMC
series BMC Women's Health
issn 1472-6874
publishDate 2012-09-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Frozen thawed embryo transfer (FET) is a cost- effective adjunct to IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. In order to optimize treatment outcome, FET should be carried out during a period of optimal endometrial receptivity. To optimize implantation several methods for endometrium preparation have been proposed. In natural cycle FET (NC-FET), the endometrium develops under endogenous hormonal stimulation. The development of the dominant follicle and endometrium is monitored by ultrasound and FET is timed after triggering ovulation induction or determination of the spontaneous LH surge. In an artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) estrogens and progesterone are administered to prepare the endometrium for implantation. While the currently available data show no significant difference in pregnancy rates between these methods, well designed randomized controlled trials are lacking. Moreover there is little literature on difference in cancellation rates, cost-efficiency and adverse events.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>In this randomized, multi-centre, non-inferiority trial we aim to test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus AC-FET. The primary outcome will be live birth rate per embryo transfer procedure. Secondary outcomes will be ongoing and clinical pregnancy rate, cancellation rate, (serious) adverse events and cost-efficiency. Based on a live birth rate of 20% and a minimal clinical important difference of 7,5% (one-sided alpha 2,5%, beta 20%) a total of 1150 patients will be needed. Analyzes will be performed using both per protocol as well as intention to treat analyses.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This prospective, randomized, non –inferiority trial aims to address the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus patients undergoing AC-FET. Moreover it addresses cost-efficiency as well as the perceived burden of both treatments.</p> <p>Trial register</p> <p>Netherlands trial register (NTR): 1586</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/12/27
work_keys_str_mv AT groenewoudevar cryothawedembryotransfernaturalversusartificialcycleanoninferioritytrialantarcticatrial
AT macklonnicks cryothawedembryotransfernaturalversusartificialcycleanoninferioritytrialantarcticatrial
AT cohlenbenj cryothawedembryotransfernaturalversusartificialcycleanoninferioritytrialantarcticatrial
_version_ 1725049560574722048