Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Clarissa Vilela Rodrigues Vieira de Carvalho Dias
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | Ribeirão Preto. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto (PCARP/BC) |
| Defense date: | 2016-01-06 |
| Examining board members: |
Ana Carolina Japur de Sá Rosa e Silva;
Oméro Benedicto Poli Nétto;
Fernando Marcos dos Reis
|
| Advisor: | Wellington de Paula Martins |
| Abstract | |
Background: The assisted reproductive techniques (ART) for the treatment of infertility/subfertility, include in vitro handling of both human oocytes and sperm or of embryos with the objective of achieving pregnancy and live birth. The recruitment of multiple follicles is often necessary for better results in pregnancy rates and it\'s achieved by performing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). COS monitoring is performed by ovarian follicle counting and ultrasonography measurements and / or hormones dosage. It is appropriate to monitor the follicular phase for decisions regarding administered of gonadotropin dose, to assess the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), to determine the best time to trigger final follicular maturation. However, the need for intensive COS monitoring is controversial: the combination of the methods adds costs and discomfort for the woman who is undergoing ART and requires additional time. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of monitoring controlled ovarian stimulation by ultrasound in assisted reproduced tecniques. Search Methods: The searches for randomized controlled trials (RCT) were performed in the main electronic databases; in addition, we hand searched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. We performed the last electronic search on March 29, 2015. Selection Criteria: Only truly randomized controlled trials comparing COS monitoring by ultrasonography and/or hormonal assessment, as studies comparing COS monitoring by 2DUS and 3DUS were considered eligible. We included studies that permitted the inclusion of the same participant more than once (cross-over or \'per cycle\' trials) only if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available. Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently performed study eligibility, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias and we solved disagreements by consulting a third reviewer. We corresponded with study investigators in order to resolve any queries, as required. Results: The search retrieved 1717 records; ten studies were eligible. No study reported live birth. Six studies compared US only vs. US + Hormones. The confidence intervals (CI) were large and did not allow us conclude benefit or harm associated with the US Only for both OHSS (Odds ratio - OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.48 to 2.18, P=0.95), and miscarriage (relative risk - RR=0.37, 95%CI 0.07 to 1.79, P=0.21). For clinical pregnancy, the CI was compatible with small benefit to small harm (RR=0.96, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.16, P=0.70). For the number of oocytes retrieved, the CI was compatible with appreciable benefit to no effect (Mean difference - MD=0.92 oocytes, 95%CI -0.19 to 2.04, P=0.70). Two studies compared 3DUS vs. 2DUS: the confidence intervals (CI) were large and did not allow us conclude benefit or harm associated with 3DUS regarding clinical pregnancy (RR=1.00, CI95% 0.58 to 1.73) and number of oocytes retrieved (MD= -0.37 oocytes, 95%CI -3.63 to 2.89). One study compared 2DUS vs. SOET, the CI was large and did not allow us conclude benefit or harm associated with SOET regarding clinical pregnancy (RR=0.95, 95%CI 0.52 a 1.75) and number of oocytes retrieved (MD=0.50, 95%CI -2.13 a 3.13). Authors\' Conclusions: Regarding effectiveness, current evidence suggests that monitoring COS only by US only should not change substantially the chances of achieving clinical pregnancy. The number of retrieved oocytes is similar to compare with the monitoring by US associated with hormonal assessment. security also seems not to increase the risk of developing OHSS. However the interpretation of results should be performed with caution, since for all outcomes and comparisons, the available data are inconclusive because the quality of evidence was compromised by inaccuracy and poor reporting of study methodology. So we believe that further studies evaluating the ideal procedure for monitoring the COS are needed (AU) | |
| FAPESP's process: | 13/11788-8 - ultrasound for monitoring controled ovarian hiperestimulation |
| Grantee: | Clarissa Vilela Rodrigues Vieira de Carvalho Dias |
| Support Opportunities: | Scholarships in Brazil - Master |