Does a vitrified blastocyst stage embryo transfer program need hormonal priming for endometrial preparation?

ABSTRACT

AIM: To compare the clinical outcomes of a vitrified blastocyst stage embryo transfer (ET) program among natural, ovulation induced and artificial cycles. MATERIAL & METHODS: The clinical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed in three groups according to endometrial preparation (natural cycle group [n = 34], ovulation induced [n = 21], and artificial cycles [n = 70]) among women that underwent vitrified blastocyst stage ET. RESULTS: The overall pregnancy rate was 48.8%. There were no significant differences in the duration of endometrial preparation, endometrial thickness on the day of progesterone or human chorionic gonadotropin administration, implantation and clinical pregnancy rates among the three groups. Triple-line endometrial patterns were more frequently observed in the natural and ovulation induced groups than in the artificial cycle group (85.3% vs 64.3%, P = 0.021; 90.5% vs 64.3%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the types of endometrial preparation may have no significant effect on the clinical outcomes of vitrified blastocyst ET. Hormonal priming does not appear to be a prerequisite for endometrial preparation for vitrified blastocyst ET.