Abstract
ObjectivesPregnancy outcomes of different ovarian stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) in patients with adenomyosis are not explicit. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of different IVF/ICSI protocols on pregnancy outcomes.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane library were searched up to October 2023.Eligibility criteriaComparative studies on IVF/ICSI outcomes in the adenomyosis population were eligible. Studies on preimplantation genetic testing, reviews, case reports and animal experiments were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisValid information was extracted by two independent authors according to a standard data format. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan, V.5.3).ResultsCompared with the non-adenomyosis population, adenomyosis was responsible for a 26% reduction in clinical pregnancy rate (CPR; 42.47% vs 55.89%, OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.82, p<0.00001), a 35% reduction in live birth rate (LBR; 30.72% vs 47.77%, OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.73, p<0.00001) and a 1.9-fold increase in miscarriage rate (MR; 27.82% vs 13.9%, OR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.56 to 2.31, p<0.00001). Subgroup analysis suggested that, in fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles, the CPR (34.4% vs 58.25%) in the long/short/antagonist protocol group was poorer than that in the ultralong protocol group. In frozen ET (FET) cycles, there were no statistical differences in CPR ((GnRHa+FET) AM(adenomyosis) vs non-AM: 51.32% vs 43.48%, p=0.31; (non-GnRHa+FET) AM vs non-AM: 50.25% vs 60.10%, p=0.82), MR ((GnRHa+FET) AM vs non-AM:12.82% vs 12.50%, p=0.97; (non-GnRHa+FET) AM vs non-AM: 30.5% vs 15.54%, p=0.15) and LBR ((GnRHa+FET) AM vs non-AM:44.74% vs 36.96%, p=0.31; (non-GnRHa+FET) AM vs non-AM: 34.42% vs 50.25%, p=0.28). The MR in the adenomyosis group was high in the fresh ET and FET cycles.ConclusionsFET might be a better choice for women with adenomyosis, especially those pretreated with GnRHa. In fresh ET cycles, pregnancy outcomes of the long/short/antagonist protocols were poorer than those of the ultralong protocol.Trial registration numberCRD42022340743.
Funder
Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province
Youth Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
Research Unit of Gametogenesis and Health of ART-Offspring, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
China Health Promotion Foundation, Taishan Scholars Program for Young Experts of Shandong Province
Youth Fund of the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province
The National Key Research and Development Program of China