Three burning issues in ART justify a survey:
(i) Vitrification, (ii) GnRH trigger and (iii) differed ET
I. Vitrification is said to be remarkable. Is this your experience?
II. Antagonists made GnRH trigger possible. A LH/FSH surge replaces hCG and avoids OHSS. Does it work all the time?
III. With vitrification, an old dream of ART came true – to dissociate COS, and the harm to the endometrium, from ET. Do you differ ETs? How good is it in your hands? Tell us.
In Internet times, novelties diffuse worldwide at the speed of light. This requires similarly rapid methods for assessing and possibly, correcting a teething process that now takes worldwide dimensions.
This survey was suggested and composed by D. de Ziegler, Université Paris Descartes – Hôpital Cochin, Paris France. It is targeted at ART programs who currently use one or all of the following three procedures: (i) embryo vitrification; (ii) GnRH trigger (instead of hCG in antagonists COS protocols); and; (iii) deferred ET
- 1%
- 25%
- 6-9%
- >10%
- >50%
- 75%
- When fearing OHSS?
- Every time you opt for differing ET?
- For other indications?
- Add small amounts of hCG to prevent endometrial alterations?
- Offer systematic cryopreservation and differed transfer?
- Offer luteal support from injectable P4
- None of the above
- A “no-oocyte” retrieval? Specify incidence
- A suboptimal oocyte harvest? Specify incidence
- Both
- None of the above
- Yes
- No
- I have not had a case of “no-oocyte” retrieval
- A normal harvest?
- Somme oocytes, but less than anticipated?
- No oocytes?
- I do not trigger again with hCG
- I have not had a case of “no-oocyte” retrieval
- Yes
- No
- Yes
- No
- Yes
- No
- Yes
- No