Advertisement

Do trained reproductive endocrinologists perform better than their trainees? Comparing clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates after transfer of single fresh blastocysts

  • Sadikah Behbehani
  • Joseph Hasson
  • Stefano Polesello
  • WY Son
  • Togas Tulandi
  • William Buckett
Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates of single blastocyst transfers performed by attending physicians or fellows in reproductive endocrinology and infertility program.

Methods

Retrospective study in an academic reproductive center. We evaluated 932 fresh single blastocyst transfer cycles performed by fellows in training (389 embryo transfers) and by attending physicians (543 embryo transfers).

Results

There were no differences in the baseline characteristics and IVF cycle parameters between patients who had transfers performed by fellows or attending physicians. Transfers performed by attending physicians or fellows resulted in similar CPR (46.5 vs. 42.9%, p = 0.28) and LBR (38.3 vs. 34.2%, p = 0.11). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that even after adjusting for possible confounders (age, gravity, parity, baseline FSH, antral follicle count, dose of gonadotropins, stimulation protocol, and quality of embryo transferred), CPR (OR 0.81, CI 0.62–1.07) and LBR (OR 0.79, CI 0.6–1.05) in the two groups were comparable.

Conclusion

Clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate after embryo transfer performed by attending staffs or fellows are comparable. This finding reassures fellowship programs that allowing fellows to perform embryo transfers does not compromise the outcome.

Keywords

Single blastocyst transfer Fellows in training Embryo transfer 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The Research and Ethics Board of the McGill University Health Centre approved the study (Study 15-249).

References

  1. 1.
    Kocourkova J, Burcin B, Kucera T. Demographic relevancy of increased use of assisted reproduction in European countries. Reprod Health. 2014;11:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Ziegler D, de Ziegler N, Sean S, Bajouh O, Meldrum DR. Training in reproductive endocrinology and infertility and assisted reproductive technologies: options and worldwide needs. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:16–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zenke U, Chetkowski RJ. Transfer and uterine factors are the major recipient-related determinants of success with donor eggs. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:850–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown J, Buckingham K, Buckett W, Abou-Setta AM. Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;3:Cd006107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schoolcraft WB. Importance of embryo transfer technique in maximizing assisted reproductive outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:855–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Samara N, Reis D, Danielli Miller N, Ghetler Y, Berkovitz A, Miller M, et al. What are the best predictors for successful GnRH antagonist protocol in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015;31:877–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tomas C, Tikkinen K, Tuomivaara L, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. The degree of difficulty of embryo transfer is an independent factor for predicting pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2632–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dessolle L, Freour T, Barriere P, Jean M, Ravel C, Darai E, et al. How soon can I be proficient in embryo transfer? Lessons from the cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). Hum Reprod. 2010;25:380–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Omidi M, Halvaei I, Mangoli E, Khalili MA, Razi MH. The effect of embryo catheter loading technique on the live birth rate. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2015;42:175–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wittenberger MD, Catherino WH, Armstrong AY. Role of embryo transfer in fellowship training. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1014–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eaton JL, Zhang X, Barnes RB. Embryo transfer by reproductive endocrinology fellows vs attending physicians: are live birth rates comparable? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:494.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lopez MJ, Garcia D, Rodriguez A, Colodron M, Vassena R, Vernaeve V. Individualized embryo transfer training: timing and performance. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1432–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shah DK, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Racowsky C, Ginsburg E. Efficacy of intrauterine inseminations as a training modality for performing embryo transfer in reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship programs. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menezo Y, Anker D, Salat-Baroux J. Conception and realization of artificial dyed embryos for training in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF and ET). Acta Eur Fertil. 1985;16:55–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teixeira DM, Dassuncao LA, Vieira CV, Barbosa MA, Coelho Neto MA, Nastri CO, et al. Ultrasound guidance during embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:139–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yao Z, Vansteelandt S, Van der Elst J, Coetsier T, Dhont M, De Sutter P. The efficacy of the embryo transfer catheter in IVF and ICSI is operator-dependent: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:880–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Urbina MT, Benjamin I, Medina R, Lerner J. Echogenic catheters and embryo transfer standardization. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2015;19:75–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:551–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oron G, Son WY, Buckett W, Tulandi T, Holzer H. The association between embryo quality and perinatal outcome of singletons born after single embryo transfers: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1444–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hosmer DW Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 3 ed, 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papageorgiou TC, Hearns-Stokes RM, Leondires MP, Miller BT, Chakraborty P, Cruess D, et al. Training of providers in embryo transfer: what is the minimum number of transfers required for proficiency? Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1415–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barber D, Egan D, Ross C, Evans B, Barlow D. Nurses performing embryo transfer: successful outcome of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:105–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barber D, Barlow D, Balen A. Fertility nurses doing embryo transfers—what is the impact of training? Hum Fertil (Camb). 2000;3:181–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinclair L, Morgan C, Lashen H, Afnan M, Sharif K. Nurses performing embryo transfer: the development and results of the Birmingham experience. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:699–702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMcGill University Reproductive CenterMontrealCanada
  2. 2.MontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations