RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage stage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether blastocyst stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfers improve the live birth rate, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Bio extracts from inception to 4th April 2016. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos, and embryo freezing. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4031 couples or women).The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 1.82; 13 RCTs, 1630 women, I(2) = 45%, low quality evidence) following fresh transfer. This suggests that if 29% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 32% and 42% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates per couple of cumulative pregnancy following fresh and frozen-thawed transfer after one oocyte retrieval (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; 5 RCTs, 632 women, I(2) = 71%, very low quality evidence).The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the blastocyst transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.47; 27 RCTs, 4031 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 36% of women achieve clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 39% and 46% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; 19 RCTs, 3019 women, I(2) = 30%, low quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; 18 RCTs, 2917 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). These data are incomplete as under 70% of studies reported these outcomes.Embryo freezing rates were lower in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; 14 RCTs, 2292 women, I(2) = 84%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; 17 RCTs, 2577 women, I(2) = 36%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 2% and 4% will have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh blastocyst stage transfer.The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitation was serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation, and unclear or high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence for live birth and moderate quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst stage transfer is associated with higher rates than fresh cleavage stage transfer. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in cumulative pregnancy rates derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval, but the evidence for this outcome was very low quality. Thus, although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst transfer in fresh cycles, it remains unclear whether the day of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage to enable couples or women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

Assuntos

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age. SEARCH METHODS: The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I(2) = 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice from early cleavage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst culture is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos thus resulting in higher implantation rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine if blastocyst stage (Day 5 to 6) embryo transfers (ETs) improve live birth rate and other associated outcomes compared with cleavage stage (Day 2 to 3) ETs. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Bio extracts. The last search date was 21 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of early cleavage versus blastocyst stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Of the 50 trials that were identified, 23 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed (five new studies were added in this update). The primary outcome was rate of live birth. Secondary outcomes were rates per couple of clinical pregnancy, cumulative clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos and cryopreservation. Quality assessment, data extraction and meta-analysis were performed following Cochrane guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs reported live birth rates and there was evidence of a significant difference in live birth rate per couple favouring blastocyst culture (1510 women, Peto OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74) (Day 2 to 3: 31%; Day 5 to 6: 38.8%, I(2) = 40%). This means that for a typical rate of 31% in clinics that use early cleavage stage cycles, the rate of live births would increase to 32% to 42% if clinics used blastocyst transfer.There was no difference in clinical pregnancy rate between early cleavage and blastocyst transfer in the 23 RCTs (Peto OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.32) (Day 2 to 3: 38.6%; Day 5 to 6: 41.6%) and no difference in miscarriage rate (13 RCTs, Peto OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.60). The four RCTs that reported cumulative pregnancy rates (266 women, Peto OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.25) (Day 2 to 3: 56.8%; Day 5 to 6: 46.3%) significantly favoured early cleavage. Embryo freezing rates (11 RCTs, 1729 women, Peto OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.35 to 3.51) and failure to transfer embryos (16 RCTs, 2459 women, OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51) (Day 2 to 3: 3.4%; Day 5 to 6: 8.9%) favoured cleavage stage transfer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that there is a small significant difference in live birth rates in favour of blastocyst transfer (Day 5 to 6) compared to cleavage stage transfer (Day 2 to 3). However, cumulative clinical pregnancy rates from cleavage stage (derived from fresh and thaw cycles) resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than from blastocyst cycles. The most likely explanation for this is the higher rates of frozen embryos and lower failure to transfer rates per couple obtained from cleavage stage protocols. Future RCTs should report miscarriage, live birth and cumulative live birth rates to enable ART consumers and service providers to make well informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Acute lower abdominal pain is common and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal woman as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with the symptoms of appendicitis and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age. SEARCH STRATEGY: The  Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINHAL were searched (to April 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, nonspecific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two authors and the risk of bias assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (7 RCTs, 561 participants; OR 4.10, 95% CI 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) 18%) but there was no evidence of reduced rate for any adverse event (8 RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. There was a significant difference favouring laparoscopy in the rate of specific diagnoses (4 RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) 79%) but there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) 0%).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of laparoscopy in women with nonspecific abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis include a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared to open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. There was no evidence of an increase in adverse events with any of the strategies.

Assuntos