Premature timing of progesterone luteal phase support initiation did not negatively impact live birth rates in modified natural frozen thawed embryo transfer cycles.

Study question: In a modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET), does the premature timing of progesterone luteal phase support (LPS) initiation 24 h following human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger impact live birth? Summary answer: Premature LPS initiation did not negatively affect the live birth rate (LBR) in mNC-FET cycles compared with conventional LPS initiation 48 h after hCG triggering. What is known already: During natural cycle FET, human chorionic gonadotropin is routinely used to mimic endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) surge to induce ovulation, which allows more flexibility in embryo transfer scheduling, thus relieving the burden of multiple visits by patients and laboratory workloads, which is also known as mNC-FET. Moreover, recent data demonstrates that ovulatory women undergoing natural cycle FETs have a lower risk of maternal and fetal complications due to the essential role of the corpus luteum in implantation, placentation and pregnancy maintenance. While several studies have confirmed the positive effects of LPS in mNC-FETs, the timing of progesterone LPS initiation is still unclear, as compared with fresh cycles where robust research has been conducted. To the best of our knowledge, no clinical studies comparing different beginning days in mNC-FET cycles have been published. Study design size duration: This retrospective cohort study involved 756 mNC-FET cycles performed at a university-affiliated reproductive center between January 2019 and August 2021. The primary outcome measured was the LBR. Participants/materials setting methods: Ovulatory women ≤42 years of age who were referred for their autologous mNC-FET cycles were included in the study. According to the timing of progesterone LPS initiation following the hCG trigger, patients were assigned into two categories: premature LPS group (progesterone initiation 24 h after hCG trigger, n = 182) versus conventional LPS group (progesterone initiation 48 h after hCG trigger, n = 574). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounding variables. Main results and the role of chance: There were no differences in background characteristics between the two study groups, except for the proportion of assisted hatching (53.8% in premature LPS group versus 42.3% in conventional LPS group, p = 0.007). In the premature LPS group, 56 of 182 patients (30.8%) had a live birth, compared to 179 of 574 patients (31.2%) in the conventional LPS group, with no significant difference observed between groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.43, p = 0.913). In addition, there was no significant difference between the two groups in other secondary outcomes. A sensitivity analysis for LBR according to the serum LH and progesterone levels on hCG trigger day also confirmed the aforementioned findings. Limitations reasons for caution: In this study, retrospective analysis was conducted in a single center and was therefore prone to bias. Additionally, we did not anticipate monitoring the patient's follicle rupture and ovulation after hCG triggering. Future prospective clinical trials remain necessary to confirm our results. Wider implications of the findings: While exogenous progesterone LPS was added 24 h after hCG triggering, embryo-endometrium synchrony would not be adversely affected so long as sufficient time was allowed for endometrial exposure to exogenous progesterone. Our data support promising clinical outcomes following this event. As a result of our findings, clinicians and patients will be able to make better informed decisions. Study funding/competing interests: No specific funding was available for this study. The authors have no personal conflicting interests to declare. Trial registration number: N/A.