P-522 Embryo transfer procedural parameters do not predict IVF cycle outcome

Abstract Study question Do embryo transfer (ET) procedural parameters affect the clinical outcome, in terms of positive human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), pregnancy and live-birth? Summary answer Observation ET parameters, either as single or combined a model, does not seem to have predictive value on cycle outcome. What is known already It has been reported that several technical nature may influence IVF Observational studies variables during post from mucus presence catheter reload, published data hitherto conflicting leaving practitioners confounded. essential evaluate effect performance clarifying degree singular combinatorial level. This will assist recording analysing strictly factors hold high-significance value, instead redundantly moot be unfit serve key indicators ET. design, size, duration A prospective observational study was performed between 3/2018 9/2022 center. procedures for total 1417 women were assessed. The studied associated with outcomes following: time ET, cervical catheter, blood, employment tenaculum stylet, resistance transfer, ease according practitioner discomfort experienced by patient. Participants/materials, setting, methods Only normal endometrial uterine anatomy function included. Genetic endocrine abnormalities, azoospermia PGT cycles excluded. Embryo grading Veeck’s Gardner’s system depending developmental stage. All ETs employing same type soft catheter. evaluated hCG, pregnancy, live-birth. Associations level outcomes. Main results role chance univariate logistic regression employed possible each parameters. None presented statistical significance. ultrasound, number, quality transferred embryos, maternal age well physician embryologist performing covariates model. Number (p = 0.01) embryos 0.003), 0.004) multivariate approach yielded similar results. To possibility interactions could outcome model created evaluating all combination adjust multiple comparison bias, Bonferroni correction employed. along significant seemed present significance < 0.0001). However, when adjusting did provide statistically thus cannot considered an independent predictor. When subgrouping only below 35 at least one top embryo, no association observed. Limitations, reasons caution sample size reason interpreting larger number presenting required reach threshold single-center another limitation. Wider implications findings Data indicates singularly combinatorially. robust are quality, age. While further cement this finding, it case time-consuming analysis such redundant. Trial registration Not applicable