Embryo transfer techniques: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine survey of current Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology practices

© 2017 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Objective To better understand practice patterns and opportunities for standardization of ET. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Not applicable. Patient(s) Not applicable. Intervention(s) An anonymous 82-question survey was emailed to the medical directors of 286 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology member IVF practices. A follow-up survey composed of three questions specific to ET technique was emailed to the same medical directors. Descriptive statistics of the results were compiled. Main Outcome Measure(s) The survey assessed policies, protocols, restrictions, and specifics pertinent to the technique of ET. Result(s) There were 117 (41%) responses; 32% practice in academic settings and 68% in private practice. Responders were experienced clinicians, half of whom had performed \u3c10 procedures during training. Ninety-eight percent of practices allowed all practitioners to perform ET; half did not follow a standardized ET technique. Multiple steps in the ET process were identified as “highly conserved;” others demonstrated discordance. ET technique is divided among [1] trial transfer followed immediately with ET (40%); [2] afterload transfer (30%); and [3] direct transfer without prior trial or afterload (27%). Embryos are discharged in the upper (66%) and middle thirds (29%) of the endometrial cavity and not closer than 1–1.5 cm from fundus (87%). Details of each step were reported and allowed the development of a “common” practice ET procedure. Conclusion(s) ET training and practices vary widely. Improved training and standardization based on outcomes data and best practices are warranted. A common practice procedure is suggested for validation by a systematic literature review

A multi-centre international study of salivary hormone oestradiol and progesterone measurements in ART monitoring

Research question: Ovarian stimulation during IVF cycles involves close monitoring of oestradiol, progesterone and ultrasound measurements of follicle growth. In contrast to blood draws, sampling saliva is less invasive. Here, a blind validation is presented of a novel saliva-based oestradiol and progesterone assay carried out in samples collected in independent IVF clinics. Design: Concurrent serum and saliva samples were collected from 324 patients at six large independent IVF laboratories. Saliva samples were frozen and run blinded. A further 18 patients had samples collected more frequently around the time of HCG trigger. Saliva samples were analysed using an immunoassay developed with Salimetrics LLC. Results: In total, 652 pairs of saliva and serum oestradiol were evaluated, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.91. In the European clinics, a further 237 of saliva and serum progesterone samples were evaluated; however, the correlations were generally poorer, ranging from -0.02 to 0.22. In the patients collected more frequently, five out of 18 patients (27.8%) showed an immediate decrease in oestradiol after trigger. When progesterone samples were assessed after trigger, eight out of 18 (44.4%) showed a continued rise. Conclusions: Salivary oestradiol hormone testing correlates well to serum-based assessment, whereas progesterone values, around the time of trigger, are not consistent from patient to patient. ABSTRACT Research question: Ovarian stimulation during IVF cycles involves close monitoring of oestradiol, progesterone and ultrasound measurements of follicle growth. In contrast to blood draws, sampling saliva is less invasive. Here, a blind validation is presented of a novel saliva-based oestradiol and progesterone assay carried out in samples collected in independent IVF clinics. Design: Concurrent serum and saliva samples were collected from 324 patients at six large independent IVF laboratories. Saliva samples were frozen and run blinded. A further 18 patients had samples collected more frequently around the time of HCG trigger. Saliva samples were analysed using an immunoassay developed with Salimetrics LLC. Results: In total, 652 pairs of saliva and serum oestradiol were evaluated, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.91. In the European clinics, a further 237 of saliva and serum progesterone samples were evaluated; however, the correlations were generally poorer, ranging from -0.02 to 0.22. In the patients collected more frequently, five out of 18 patients (27.8%) showed an immediate decrease in oestradiol after trigger. When progesterone samples were assessed after trigger, eight out of 18 (44.4%) showed a continued rise. Conclusions: Salivary oestradiol hormone testing correlates well to serum-based assessment, whereas progesterone values, around the time of trigger, are not consistent from patient to patient