About this trial
The efficacy and safety of endometrial preparation regimens remain controversial. In the most recent meta-analysis, using natural and modified natural cycle protocol to prepare the endometrium in frozen embryo transfer resulted in higher live birth rates. In addition, the natural cycle reduces the risk of gestational hypertension, postpartum haemorrhage, and extremely preterm delivery compared with regimens using exogenous hormones.
Because there are many physiological and endocrinal differences in the frozen embryo transfer cycle with different endometrial preparation protocols, the development of children born from these regimens has received much attention. For example, there is a complete absence of the corpus luteum during the cycle of exogenous hormone administration. Or in the modified natural cycle, the pharmacokinetics is not entirely the same as the natural physiology when using an additional ovulatory injection with hCG. To date, there have been no longitudinal follow-up studies that evaluated and compared the long-term development of IVF/ICSI children born from frozen embryo transfer with different endometrial preparation protocols.
Thus, the investigators conduct a follow-up of our RCT to investigate the IVF/ICSI children born from frozen embryo transfer with different endometrial preparation protocols to give strong evidence about the safety of the three most common endometrial preparation protocols in women undergoing frozen embryo transfer.
Eligibility criteria
This trial accepts healthy volunteersQualifiers
All live IVF/ICSI babies born from frozen embryo transfer following the natural cycle, modified natural cycle, and artificial cycle from MONART study
Parents agree to participate in the study.
Disqualifiers
Babies died under or at 24 months
Trial population
Live IVF/ICSI babies born from frozen embryo transfer following the natural cycle, modified natural cycle, and artificial cycle from MONART study (NCT04804020)
Trial design
Cohort
Prospective
Treatments tested in this trial
Developmental score according to The Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition - ASQ®-3
Diagnostic testAges \& Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition (ASQ®-3) is a developmental screening tool designed for use by early educators and health care professionals. It relies on parents as experts, is easy-to-use, family-friendly and creates the snapshot needed to catch delays and celebrate milestones.
Physical development and General Health
Other interventionPhysical development and General health examination
Developmental Red flags
Diagnostic testDevelopmental Red flags Questionnaires
Treatment groups
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
The average total ASQ-3 score
ASQ-3 (Ages and Stages Questionaires®) has 5 aspects: Communication, Gross motor, Fine motor, Problem solving and Personal-Social Each aspect has 6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. ASQ-3 average = average score of 5 aspects.
Secondary outcomes
Score of Communication
6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold
Score of Gross motor
6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold
Score of Fine motor
6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold
Score of Problem solving
6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold
Sponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.