The human factor: does the operator performing the embryo transfer significantly impact the cycle outcome?

F Cirillo, P Patrizio, M Baccini, E Morenghi, C Ronchetti, L Cafaro, E Zannoni, A Baggiani, P E Levi-Setti, F Cirillo, P Patrizio, M Baccini, E Morenghi, C Ronchetti, L Cafaro, E Zannoni, A Baggiani, P E Levi-Setti

Abstract

Study question: Is Ongoing Pregnancy Rate (OPR) operator-dependent, and can experience improve embryo transfer efficiency?

Summary answer: OPR is influenced by the operators who perform the embryo transfer (ET), and experience does not assure proficiency for everyone.

What is known already: ET remains the critical step in assisted reproduction. Although many other factors such as embryo quality and uterine receptivity impact embryo implantation, the proper ET technique is clearly an operator-dependent variable and as such it should be objectively standardized.

Study design, size, duration: Retrospective comparative analysis including all fresh ETs performed between January 1996 and December 2016 at the Humanitas Fertility Center after IVF-ICSI cycles.

Participants/materials, setting, methods: IVF/ICSI fresh ETs performed by 32 operators, 19 824 cycles in all, were analyzed. All transfers consisting of freehand insertion of a preloaded soft catheter into the uterine cavity under transabdominal ultrasound guidance were considered. Two different statistical analyses were performed. First, a logistic regression model with a random intercept for the operator was used to estimate the heterogeneity of the rate of success among operators, accounting for woman age, FSH, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, year of the procedure, number and stage of transferred embryos and operator's experience. Second, the relationship between experience and pregnancy rate was estimated separately for each operator by logistic regression, and operator-specific results were combined and compared in a random-effects meta-analysis. In both analyses, the operator's experience at time t was measured in terms of number of embryo transfers performed before t.

Main results and the role of chance: The heterogeneity among operators was highly significant (P value <0.001) and explained 44.5% of the total variability. The odds ratio of success of the worst operator in respect to the mean was equal to 0.84. For the best operator, the odds ratio of success was equal to 1.13 in respect to the mean. Based on the meta-analysis of the relationship between operator's experience and success rate, it resulted that, on average, the operators' performance did not improve with additional transfers.

Limitations, reasons for caution: At our center, operators become independent for ET's after performing between 30 and 50 transfers under supervision. It is also possible that other relevant factors, such as embryologists on duty for the ET, have not been included in the present analysis and this may represent a potential bias. Among these, it should be mentioned that the embryologists on duty for the ET were not taken into consideration.

Wider implications of the findings: Continued performance analysis and the use of a digital simulator could help operators to test their expertise over time and either correct poor performance or avoid doing transfers.

Study funding/competing interest(s): None.

Trial registration number: NCT03561129.

Keywords: IVF success rate; embryo transfer; experience; learning curve; operator.

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Figures

Figure 1. Meta-analysis of the surgeon-specific slope…
Figure 1. Meta-analysis of the surgeon-specific slope expressing the role of the experience on the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR). The dot position expresses the relation of the growing experience in terms of better or worse outcomes. Each line represents a single operator. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

References

    1. Abou-Setta AM, Al-Inany HG, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Aboulghar MA. Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2005;20:3114–3121.
    1. Alvero R, Hearns-Stokes RM, Catherino WH, Leondires MP, Segars JH. The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1848–1852.
    1. Bjuresten K, Hreinsson JG, Fridstrom M, Rosenlund B, Ek I, Hovatta O. Embryo transfer by midwife or gynecologist: a prospective randomized study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:462–466.
    1. Buckett WM. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2006;85:728–734.
    1. Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martinez F, Veiga A, Balasch J. The usefulness of ultrasound guidance in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2885–2890.
    1. Dessolle L, Freour T, Barriere P, Jean M, Ravel C, Darai E, Biau DJ. How soon can I be proficient in embryo transfer? Lessons from the cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). Hum Reprod 2010;25:380–386.
    1. Fanchin R, Righini C, de Ziegler D, Olivennes F, Ledee N, Frydman R. Effects of vaginal progesterone administration on uterine contractility at the time of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2001;75:1136–1140.
    1. Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, de Ziegler D, Frydman R. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1968–1974.
    1. Frankfurter D, Silva CP, Mota F, Trimarchi JB, Keefe DL. The transfer point is a novel measure of embryo placement. Fertil Steril 2003;79:1416–1421.
    1. Hearns-Stokes RM, Miller BT, Scott L, Creuss D, Chakraborty PK, Segars JH. Pregnancy rates after embryo transfer depend on the provider at embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;74:80–86.
    1. Karande VC, Morris R, Chapman C, Rinehart J, Gleicher N. Impact of the “physician factor” on pregnancy rates in a large assisted reproductive technology program: do too many cooks spoil the broth? Fertil Steril 1999;71:1001–1009.
    1. Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Cavagna M, Bulletti C, Colombo GV, Negri L. The impact of embryo transfer on implantation--a review. Placenta 2003;24Suppl B:S20–S26.
    1. Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Matteo M, Morenghi E, Zannoni E, Baggiani AM, Arfuso V, Patrizio P. Five years (2004-2009) of a restrictive law-regulating ART in Italy significantly reduced delivery rate: analysis of 10,706 cycles. Hum Reprod 2013;28:343–349.
    1. Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Novara P, Cesana A, Negri L. Results of in vitro fertilization in Italy after the introduction of a new law. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1081–1086.
    1. Levi-Setti PE, Cirillo F, Scolaro V, Morenghi E, Heilbron F, Girardello D, Zannoni E, Patrizio P. Appraisal of clinical complications after 23,827 oocyte retrievals in a large assisted reproductive technology program. Fertil Steril 2018;109:1038–1043e1031.
    1. Morin S, Franasiak JM, Juneau CR, Scott RT. Live birth rate following embryo transfer is significantly influenced by the physician performing the transfer: data from 2707 euploid blastocyst transfers by 11 physicians. Fertil Steril 2016;e25:106.
    1. O'Flynn N. Assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems: NICE guideline. Br J Gen Pract 2014;64:50–51.
    1. Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour G, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;CD003416.
    1. Papageorgiou TC, Hearns-Stokes RM, Leondires MP, Miller BT, Chakraborty P, Cruess D, Segars J. Training of providers in embryo transfer: what is the minimum number of transfers required for proficiency? Hum Reprod 2001;16:1415–1419.
    1. Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Pozzobon C, Tank P, Tournaye H, Bourgain C, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. Progesterone rise on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin administration impairs pregnancy outcome in day 3 single-embryo transfer, while has no effect on day 5 single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2009;91:949–952.
    1. Sallam HN, Agameya AF, Rahman AF, Ezzeldin F, Sallam AN. Ultrasound measurement of the uterocervical angle before embryo transfer: a prospective controlled study. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1767–1772.
    1. Tomas C, Tikkinen K, Tuomivaara L, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. The degree of difficulty of embryo transfer is an independent factor for predicting pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2632–2635.
    1. Uyar A, Bener A, Ciray HN, Bahceci M. Physician experience in performing embryo transfers may affect outcome. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1860–1862.
    1. van de Pas MM, Weima S, Looman CW, Broekmans FJ. The use of fixed distance embryo transfer after IVF/ICSI equalizes the success rates among physicians. Hum Reprod 2003;18:774–780.
    1. van Weering HG, Schats R, McDonnell J, Hompes PG. Ongoing pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization are not dependent on the physician performing the embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2005;83:316–320.
    1. Weitzman VN, Schnee-Riesz J, Benadiva C, Nulsen J, Siano L, Maier D. Predictive value of embryo grading for embryos with known outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010;93:658–662.
    1. Yao Z, Vansteelandt S, Van der Elst J, Coetsier T, Dhont M, De Sutter P. The efficacy of the embryo transfer catheter in IVF and ICSI is operator-dependent: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2009;24:880–887.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa