Firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis using direct and adjusted indirect comparisons

被引:22
作者
Abou-Setta, AM [1 ]
机构
[1] Egyptian IVF ET Ctr, Cairo 11431, Egypt
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
embryo transfer; embryo transfer catheter; embryo transfer technique; randomized controlled trial(s);
D O I
10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60860-7
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
A systematic review of published evidence on firm embryo transfer catheters is presented. Extensive searches were conducted for full-text manuscripts, abstracts, ongoing and unpublished trials. Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons were undertaken, where appropriate. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials comparing embryo transfer catheters were identified. Only two trials (3 14 transfers) compared different firm embryo catheters. Using direct comparison, both the Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters demonstrated statistically significant increased chances of clinical pregnancy compared with the Tight Difficult Transfer (TDT) catheter (P = 0.007; OR = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.48-9. 10 and P < 0.0001; OR = 4.71, 95% CI = 2.34-9.48 respectively). The implantation rates were also higher with the Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters than the TDT catheter (P = 0.005; OR = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.48-9. 10 and P < 0.00001; OR = 4.29, 95% CI = 2.45-7.50 respectively). Using adjusted indirect comparison, Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters were compared, and shown to have similar pregnancy and implantation rates (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = -0.87-1.79 and OR = 0.86; 95% CI = -0.77-1.35). In conclusion, both Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters dive better outcomes than the TDT catheter, but are similar to each other.
引用
收藏
页码:191 / 198
页数:8
相关论文
共 57 条
[41]  
Saldeen P, 2003, HUM REPROD, V18, P130
[42]   A postal survey of embryo transfer practice in the UK [J].
Salha, OH ;
Lamb, VK ;
Balen, AH .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2001, 16 (04) :686-690
[43]   Impact of technical difficulties, choice of catheter, and the presence of blood on the success of embryo transfer - Experience from a single provider [J].
Sallam, HN ;
Agameya, AF ;
Rahman, AF ;
Ezzeldin, F ;
Sallam, AN .
JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 2003, 20 (04) :135-142
[44]   Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Sallam, HN ;
Sadek, SS .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2003, 80 (04) :1042-1046
[45]   IVF-ICSI pregnancy outcomes in a randomized embryo transfer catheter trail comparing the cook soft-pass catheter to the Edward-Wallace catheter. [J].
Schiewe, MC .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2001, 76 (03) :S181-S182
[46]   Transmyometrial embryo transfer after difficult immediate mock transcervical transfer [J].
Sharif, K ;
Afnan, M ;
Lenton, W ;
Bilalis, D ;
Hunjan, M ;
Khalaf, Y .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 1996, 65 (05) :1071-1074
[47]   Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses [J].
Song, F ;
Altman, DG ;
Glenny, AM ;
Deeks, JJ .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7387) :472-475
[48]  
SWEET CR, 1998, FERTIL STERIL S1, V70, pS331
[49]  
TAYLOR TH, 2005, HUM REPROD S1, V20, pI130
[50]   The degree of difficulty of embryo transfer is an independent factor for predicting pregnancy [J].
Tomás, C ;
Tikkinen, K ;
Tuomivaara, L ;
Tapanainen, JS ;
Martikainen, H .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (10) :2632-2635