Interim Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Abdominal Versus Transvaginal Ultrasound-guided Embryo Transfer
Overview
Affiliations
Aim: Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer appears to improve overall pregnancy outcomes for in vitro fertilization embryo transfer cycles. Most reports are done using a transabdominal ultrasound-guided approach, in contrast to a transvaginal ultrasound, which does not require a full bladder. We sought to determine if either approach was better with respect to clinical pregnancy outcomes.
Methods: This randomized clinical trial took place in a university-based practice with an enrollment of 186 subjects. Secondary measures also included embryo transfer time and degree of cramping and pain, which subjects ranked as none = 1; mild = 2; moderate = 3; or severe = 4.
Results: There were no differences in implantation rates (33.1 + or - 4.1%, + or - standard error vs 31.1 + or - 3.9%, P = 0.78), pregnancy rates (60% vs 54%, P = 0.38), clinical pregnancy rates (48% vs 45%, P = 0.77), and live-birth rates (30% vs 39%, P = 0.37) between transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer groups. No differences were noted between groups for time required for embryo transfer (157 + or - 279 seconds vs 130 + or - 176 seconds, P = 0.92), uterine cramping (1.2 + or - 0.5 vs 1.2 + or - 0.4, P = 0.4), and the degree of pain (1.4 + or - 0.7 vs 1.3 + or - 0.5, P = 0.13).
Conclusions: Neither transabdominal nor transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer is more beneficial in optimizing pregnancy outcomes. While delays often occur while waiting for bladder distension for transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer, uterine position, parity and level of physician comfort should dictate the choice of either approach.
Azimi S, Zadeh Modarres S, Esgandari M, Abdollahzadeh Fahimi S, Fazeli R J Reprod Infertil. 2024; 25(2):140-147.
PMID: 39157802 PMC: 11327424. DOI: 10.18502/jri.v25i2.16008.
Evidence and consensus on technical aspects of embryo transfer.
DAngelo A, Panayotidis C, Alteri A, Mcheik S, Veleva Z Hum Reprod Open. 2022; 2022(4):hoac038.
PMID: 36196080 PMC: 9522404. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac038.
Geran Malekkheili P, Zadehmodarres S, Heidar Z Int J Reprod Biomed. 2022; 20(3):169-176.
PMID: 35571496 PMC: 9099364. DOI: 10.18502/ijrm.v20i3.10708.
Tyler B, Walford H, Tamblyn J, Keay S, Mavrelos D, Yasmin E Hum Reprod Update. 2022; 28(4):480-500.
PMID: 35325124 PMC: 9631462. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmac009.
Mohamed Hassan S, Ramadan W, Elsharkawy M, Bayoumi Y Int J Womens Health. 2021; 13:861-867.
PMID: 34584462 PMC: 8464338. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S325557.