Comparison of pregnancy outcomes of cervical mucus washing with physiologic saline solution or G-Rinse medium solution, in elective single-embryo transfers.

ABSTRACT

AIM: To compare the pregnancy outcomes between physiologic saline and G-Rinse medium solution for cervical mucus washing, in fresh elective single-embryo transfers (ET) in women under the age of 37. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective data analysis performed in a single in vitro fertilization (IVF) center between February 2018 and November 2021. Women younger than 37 years who underwent single elective ET were included and all women had anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels ≥ 1.5 ng/ml. Age, body mass index (BMI), AMH levels, and pregnancy outcomes as clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were analyzed. RESULTS: Study population consisted of 75 women in the G-Rinse medium solution group and 97 women in the physiologic saline group. Clinical pregnancy rate was 58.7% and 61.9% in the G-Rinse medium solution group and saline group, respectively (p = 0.673), and LBR was calculated as 41.3% and 47.4% in the G-Rinse medium solution group and saline group, respectively (p = 0.430). A log-binomial regression model was used and the model was adjusted for BMI to evaluate the effect of the cervical mucus washing method on the pregnancy outcomes. There was an estimated 5% decrease in the relative risk for CPR in the G-Rinse medium solution group compared to the saline group (95% CI 0.74 to 1.2, p = 0.673). There was an estimated 13% reduction in the relative risk for LBR in the G-Rinse medium solution group compared to the saline group (95% CI 0.62 to 1.23, p = 0.430). They were both statistically not significant. CONCLUSION: In our study, the replacement of using G-Rinse medium solution to physiologic saline solution for cervical cleaning did not change CPR and LBR outcomes. Using physiologic saline solution can be a good alternative approach for ectocervical washing during embryo transfer in selected population because of its lower costs, easy accessibility, and common use.