Retrospective analysis of the endometrial preparation protocols for frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles in women with endometriosis

Background There was inconsistency in optimal endometrial preparation protocol for frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in patients with endometriosis. We conducted this study to investigate the effect of different endometrial preparation protocols on the pregnancy outcomes in patients with endometriosis undergoing FET cycles, and determine the optimal number of GnRHa injections in GnRHa-HRT protocols. Method(s) This was a retrospective cohort analysis of women with endometriosis who underwent FET cycles at a single university-based center. This study retrospectively analyzed 2048 FET cycles in our center from 2011 to 2020. According to the endometrial preparation protocols, patients were divided into 4 groups: gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist-hormone replacement therapy(GnRHa-HRT), hormone replacement therapy(HRT), ovulation induction(OI), and natural cycle(NC). In the GnRHa-HRT group, patients were further divided into 3 groups: one injection of GnRHa, two injections of GnRHa, and three or more injections of GnRHa. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential non-similarities among the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to figure out the risk factors for pregnancy outcomes. Result(s) There were no statistical differences in pregnancy outcomes among the four endometrial preparation protocols in FET cycles with endometriosis patients, the results retained after propensity score matching(PSM). And in endometriosis patients complicated with adenomyosis, the results remained similar. In patients with GnRHa-HRT protocol, there were no differences in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate with different numbers of GnRHa injections, the early miscarriage rate were 18% in the two injections of GnRHa group and 6.5% in the one injection of GnRHa group(P = 0.017). Multifactorial logistic regression analysis showed that two injections of GnRHa before FET was associated with increased early miscarriage rate compared with one injection of GnRHa[adjusted OR (95% CI): 3.116(1.079–8.998),p = 0.036]. Retrospective analysis of the endometrial preparation protocols for frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles in women with endometriosis Jingdi Yang1†, Yangxing Wen1†, Danping Li1, Xuerong Hou1, Bo Peng2 and Zengyan Wang1* Page 2 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83

Endometriosis is the presence of the endometrium outside the uterine cavity, with persistent growth and infiltration of ectopic tissues, which then causes inflam - mation, pain, and infertility [ 1]. Endometriosis is a com - mon condition in women of reproductive age, with 5–10% of women of reproductive age suffering from endometriosis and 40–50% of women with endometrio - sis also suffering from infertility [ 2]. The European Soci - ety of Human Reproduction and Embryology(ESHRE) guidelines for endometriosis recommended that assisted reproductive technology(ART) could be applied to endo - metriosis patients with infertility [3, 4]. GnRH-a blocks pituitary GnRH release to hinder ovary hormone secretion, while preventing premature lutein - ization of follicles and enhancing follicular growth syn - chronization [5]. Some studies suggested GnRH-a might improve the pelvic environment and yield high-quality eggs and embryos in patients with endometriosis [ 5, 6]. However, the GnRHa-HRT protocol has disadvantages such as high cost [ 7], risk of hypo-estrogenic side effects [8], ovarian cyst formation [7, 9, 10], and a time-consum- ing preparation process [11]. The effectiveness of GnRHa in endometrial preparation for FET cycles was controver- sial, with no definitive conclusions on the preferred pro - tocol for patients with endometriosis. A meta-analysis showed that downregulation was effective only for stage III or IV endometriosis patients, but not for mild endo - metriosis patients [ 12]. However, a retrospective analysis found no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes among NC, HRT, and GnRHa-HRT cycle protocols for patients with endometriosis undergoing FET [13]. Patients with endometriosis may also be diagnosed with adenomyosis, adenomyosis is an independent risk factor for low fertility in endometriosis patients [ 14]. There was no consensus on the use of GnRHa prior to FET for patients with adenomyosis, different studies have reached opposite conclusions [15– 17]. The number of GnRHa injections before FET in GnRHa-HRT protocol varies among hospitals and clini - cians [ 12]. The effectiveness of long-term GnRHa treat - ment before IVF/ICSI in endometriosis patients remains uncertain [ 18, 19]. A randomized controlled study found no improvement in pregnancy outcomes with the ultralong protocol in patients with endometriosis, meanwhile found a longer duration of ovarian stimula - tion, higher consumption of gonadotrophins, and lower ovarian estradiol production [ 20]. Additionally, another study found that a shortened number of GnRHa applica - tions for IVF was found to be as effective as an extra-long protocol [ 21]. The ESHRE guideline for endometriosis did not recommend extended use of GnRH agonist ther - apy to improve live birth rates due to uncertain benefit [4]. There was inconsistency in endometrial preparation protocols for FET in patients with endometriosis and adenomyosis. Can GnRHa downregulation improve the clinical outcomes of the FET cycle in patients with endo - metriosis and adenomyosis? And what about increas - ing the number of GnRHa injections? To answer these questions, we retrospectively analyzed 2048 FET cycles in endometriosis patients from 2011 to 2020, and inves - tigated the effect of different endometrial preparation protocols on pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancy outcomes of endometriosis patients complicated with adenomyo - sis undergoing FET were also explored. Then, we further explored the effect of the numbers of GnRHa injections used before FET on pregnancy outcomes in GnRHa-HRT endometrial preparation protocol.

Study design This was a retrospective cohort analysis of women with endometriosis who underwent FET cycles. Women with endometriosis were treated with FET cycles at the Repro- ductive Medicine center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. The institutional ethics com - mittee (The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen Uni - versity) approved the study, and informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of this study. Patient inclusion This study retrospectively analyzed 2048 FET cycles of patients with endometriosis in our center from 2011 to 2020. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed with endometriosis by laparoscopic or laparotomy, or in some cases diagnosed by transvaginal/rectal ultrasound suggestive of ovarian endometriotic cysts. The inclusion criteria were: (1) patients with a diagnosis of endome - triosis who underwent FET at our center, (2) female age at FET: <40 years. The exclusion criteria were: (1) abnor - mal uterine cavity, (2) recurrent miscarriages, and (3) repeated implantation failure (Supplemental Fig. 1). Conclusion(s) The four kinds of endometrial preparation protocols for FET, GnRHa-HRT, HRT, OI and NC had similar pregnancy outcomes in patients with endometriosis. In endometriosis patients complicated with adenomyosis, the

remained similar. In patients with endometriosis undergoing GnRHa-HRT protocol for FET, more injections of GnRHa had no more advantages in pregnancy outcomes, on the contrary, it might increase the early miscarriage rate.

Endometrial preparation protocols, Endometriosis, GnRHa, Pregnancy outcomes Page 3 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83 To compare the efficacy of different endometrial preparation protocols during FET cycles for endome - triosis patients, four groups were analyzed: GnRHa- HRT, HRT, OI, and NC. Baseline characteristics as well as pregnancy outcomes were compared. Propensity score matching(PSM) was used to adjust for potential non-similarities among the groups and determine if the GnRHa-HRT protocol was superior in terms of preg - nancy outcomes. PSM matched baseline characteristics and other variables using logistic regression model. For endometriosis patients complicated with adenomyo - sis were also compared. In the GnRHa-HRT protocol, patients were further grouped based on the number of GnRHa used before FET, and the baseline characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared. Endometrial preparation protocols The endometrial preparation protocols in this study include GnRHa-HRT, HRT, OI, and NC. Clinicians chose a protocol based on the patient’s condition and their own experiences, but there is no strict and unified standard in clinical practice. FET with GnRHa-HRT and HRT protocols Usually the GnRHa-HRT protocol was used if the patient was diagnosed with ovarian endometriotic cyst or if there was a combination of adenomyosis. GnRHa Trip - torelin Acetate Injection(Decapeptyl; Ferring GmbH, Germany) was administered on the second day of the menstrual cycle(D2) for down regulation, the dosage of GnRHa ranges from 0.8 to 3.75 mg, with 1 mg, 1.3 mg, 1.8  mg and 3.75  mg being the most commonly used, depending on the patient’s condition and the practice of different physicians. And the decision to administer the next GnRHa injection was made after an interval of 28 days(rarely 14 days), a second GnRHa injection is given if the the size of ovarian endometriosis cyst or adeno - myosis lesion has not decreased. Oral oestradiol(E2) valerate (Progynova; Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany) was administered for 10–18 days from day 2–3 of menstruation, transvaginal ultrasonography was performed, if there was no sign of a dominant follicle or ovulation and the endometrial thickness reached at least 7  mm, conversion of the endometrium was determined based on the endometrial condition and hormone levels, then FET was planned. Luteal support was started on the same day and embryo transfer was performed on day 4 or 6 depending on embryo development, E2 could con - tinue to be used. If pregnancy was confirmed, E2 and progesterone(P , Dydrogesterone, Abbott, USA) supple - ment would be continued until about 10 weeks of preg - nancy. The FET protocol with HRT was similar to that with GnRHa-HRT, except that GnRHa was not used, this protocol was commonly used for women with irregular menstruation or a history of anovulation. FET with NC protocol NC protocol was a favorable option for women with reg - ular menstruation. Usually modified NC protocol was used. Transvaginal ultrasound and basal hormone lev - els test were performed from day 2 to 3 of the menstrual cycle. On day 8 to 10 of the menstrual cycle, ultrasound was performed to monitor follicle size, endometrial thickness and morphology. At the same time, the patient would undergo urine luteinizing hormone(LH) test strip by their own. If a strong positive was found, blood E2, P and LH were measured, and confirmed the LH peak. After the LH peak, the ultrasound monitoring still con - tinued, the ovulation day was set as Day one (D1). And luteal support was started on the day of ovulation, and embryo transfer was performed on the third or fifth day of initiation of P administration(D3 or D5) for cleavage embryos or blastocysts. In order to prevent luteal insuf - ficiency, we routinely used luteal support, Dydrogester - one 10 mg po BID, for 17 days to the pregnancy test date, if pregnant, the drug was continued, if not pregnant, the drug was stopped. FET with OI protocol OI protocol might be considered when patients were combined with polycystic ovary syndrome(PCOS) or other reasons caused ovulatory dysfunction. Ultra - sound monitoring was started on the third to fifth day of menstruation, if the endometrial thickness ≤ 5  mm and there were no dominant follicles in both ovaries, OI protocol was performed. Letrozole (Novartis, Swe - den) 2.5  mg BID for 5 days or clomiphene(Kangtai, China) 50/100  mg QD for 5 days was given, follicles were monitored under ultrasound after 5 days, human menopausal Gonadotropin(HMG) 37.5-75IU was given, when the dominant follicle was ≥ 18  mm, human chori- onic gonadotropin(HCG) was injected intramuscularly, ovulation was confirmed by ultrasound after 36  h, after confirming ovulation, luteal support was given, embryo transfer was performed on the third or fifth day of initia - tion of P administration. The luteal support protocol was similar with the above NC protocol. Outcomes The primary outcome in this study was the clinical preg - nancy rate. Secondary outcomes included live birth rate, early miscarriage rate. The clinical pregnancy was defined as a gestational sac detected by ultrasound after 4 weeks of embryo transfer. Live birth was defined as delivery with at least one live fetus. Early miscarriage was defined as miscarriage occurring before 12 weeks of gestation. Page 4 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83 Statistical analyses Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 23. 0 software. The continuous variables were expressed as ( mean ± standard deviation), and the Kolmogorov- Smirnov test was used for normality analysis, and the data conforming to normal distribution were compared using one-way analysis of variance, and the non-normally distributed data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test. The categorical data were expressed as frequency and percentage which were compared among groups using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. To exclude confounding factors logistic regression analysis was per - formed, the covariates included in the analysis were: baseline characteristics and other variables that may affect pregnancy outcomes. All covariates were first ana - lyzed separately by univariate logistic regression, and covariates with P value < 0.2 were included in the mul - tivariate logistic regression analysis. Some variables of our interest and clinically considered important such as: endometrial preparation protocols, maternal age at FET, infertility diagnosis, BMI, endometriosis American Soci - ety for Reproductive Medicine(ASRM) stage [22], and the proportion of endometriosis complicated with adeno - myosis were always included in the multifactorial logistic regression analysis. Finally, 1:1 matching was performed using PSM, and propensity scores were calculated based on baseline characteristics and other variables that may affect pregnancy outcomes using logistic regression models. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be sta- tistically significant.

Baseline and cycle characteristics According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2048 FET cycles of patients with endometriosis in our cen - ter from 2011 to 2020 were analyzed, 451, 696, 42, and 859 cycles were included in the GnRHa-HRT, HRT, OI, and NC endometrial preparation protocols, respectively. The details of the patients’ baseline characteristics were shown in Table  1. There were statistically significant dif - ferences in the duration of infertility, infertility diagnosis, infertility etiology(tubal factors, other factors), endome - triosis ASRM stage, and the proportion of endometriosis patients complicated with adenomyosis (P < 0.05). Among the cycle characteristics, there were statistical differences in ovarian stimulation protocols, gonadotro - pin (Gn) dose, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos transferred, and rate of high quality embryos transferred (P < 0.05) (Table 1). Pregnancy outcomes Pregnancy outcomes were shown in Table  1, with no sig- nificant differences in clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, or early miscarriage rate among the 4 endometrial preparation protocols. Baseline and cycle characteris - tics were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression with pregnancy outcomes as the dependent variables. After adjusting for possible confounders, no correlation was shown among different endometrial preparation protocols and pregnancy outcomes(Table 2). PSM After PSM, 312 cycles with GnRHa-HRT protocol and 312 cycles with NC protocol were compared, there were no statistical differences in the baseline characteris - tics and other variables that may affect pregnancy out - comes between the two groups, and further analysis also showed no statistical differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups (Table  3). Three hundred and thirty-two cycles with GnRHa-HRT protocol and 332 cycles with HRT protocol were compared, there were no statistical differences in most of the baseline characteris - tics between the two groups after matching, and no sta - tistical differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups(Table 3). There were 42 cases in the OI group which did not perform PSM due to the small number of cases. Endometriosis complicated with adenomyosis There were 151 cycles (17.6%) complicated with adeno - myosis, and adenomyosis was classified according to severity as focal or diffuse. There were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes among the differ - ent endometrial preparation protocols(Supplemental Table  1). After univariate and multivariate regression analysis, the results were still retained(Supplemental Table 2). Effect of the number of GnRHa injections before FET on pregnancy outcomes The GnRHa-HRT endometrial preparation protocol con- sisted of 451 cycles, which could be divided into 3 groups according to the number of GnRHa-HRT jnjections before FET. For the baseline characteristics, the propor - tion of endometriosis complicated with adenomyosis and endometriosis ASRM stage were statistically different among the three groups(P < 0.05). About the cycle char - acteristics, ovarian stimulation protocols, Gn dosage, number of oocytes retrieved, type of embryo transferred and number of high quality embryos transferred were statistically different among the three groups (P < 0.05) (Supplemental Table 3). Pregnancy outcomes were analyzed, and there were no statistical differences in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups, the early miscar - riage rate were 18% in the two GnRHa injections group and 6.5% in one GnRHa injection group (P = 0.017) (Supplemental Table  3). Subsequent univariate and Page 5 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83 multifactorial logistic analyses showed that there were no correlations between the number of GnRHa injec - tions and clinical pregnancy rate as well as live birth rate, two GnRHa injections before FET was associated with increased early miscarriage rate compared with one GnRHa injection[adjusted OR (95% CI): 3.116(1.079– 8.998),p = 0.036] (Table 4).

FET is commonly used in ART due to various reasons including unsuitability of endometrial for fresh cycle transfer, high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syn - drome in fresh cycles, and promotion of cumulative live birth rate [ 23]. The rate of FET performed in patients with endometrosis was about 41% and the rate of fresh transplantation was about 59% [ 24]. However, the best endometrial preparation protocol for FET remained uncertain. Our study compared four endometrial prepa - ration protocols in patients with endometriosis and found no significant difference in pregnancy outcomes. After PSM analysis the results remained similar. For endometriosis patients complicated with adenomyosis, there were also no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes among the four protocols. In patients undergo- ing GnRHa-HRT protocol, there were no significant dif - ferences in clinical pregnancy and live birth rates among those with different numbers of GnRHa used, but two injections of GnRHa increased early miscarriage rate compared with the one injection group. Our study found no significant differences in preg - nancy outcomes among four protocols for endometriosis patients. Previous research suggested that GnRHa may Table 1 General characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with different endometrial preparation protocols Variables 1:GnRH-a-HRT 2:HRT 3:OI 4:NC P value No. of cases 451 696 42 859 - Maternal age at FET, years 32.29 ± 3.49 32.11 ± 3.53 32.71 ± 3.49 32.29 ± 3.40 0.551 Duration of infertility, years 3.50 ± 2.34 4.02 ± 2.67 3.74 ± 2.36 4.12 ± 2.68 0.001a Body mass index, kg/m2 20.75 ± 2.45 20.80 ± 2.48 21.25 ± 2.83 20.69 ± 2.42 0.607 Infertility diagnosis Primary infertil- ity, n (%) 61.2% (276/451) 54.7% (381/696) 40.5% (17/42) 59.4% (510/859) 0.001a Secondary infer- tility, n (%) 36.1%(163/451) 43.5%(303/696) 54.8%(23/42) 40%(344/859) Infertility-freeb 2.7%(12/451) 1.7%(12/696) 4.8%(2/42) 0.6%(5/859) Infertility etiology, n (%) Tubal factor 51.2%(231/451) 56.8%(395/696) 61.9%(26/42) 63.7%(547/859) 0.000a Male factor 49.7%(224/451) 47.6%(331/696) 57.1%(24/42) 47.4%(407/859) 0.556 Other 33.9%(153/451) 35.5%(247/696) 19%(8/42) 24.9%(214/859) 0.000a endometriosis ASRM stagec ASRMI-II 14.6%(66/451) 45.7%(318/696) 50%(21/42) 51.2%(440/859) 0.000a ASRMIII-IV 85.4%(385/451) 54.3%(378/696) 50%(21/42) 48.8%(419/859) endometriosis complicated with adenomyosis 20.4%(92/451) 3.6%(25/696) 14.3%(6/42) 3.3%(28/859) 0.000a Ovarian stimulation protocols, n (%) Long GnRH-a 55.2%(249/451) 74.1%(516/696) 69%(29/42) 79.6%(684/859) 0.000a GnRH-a ultra-long 12.4%(56/451) 4%(28/696) 0%(0/42) 2.1%(18/859) GnRH antagonist 24.8%(112/451) 15.1%(105/696) 26.2%(11/42) 12.2%(105/859) Other protocols 7.5%(34/451) 6.8%(47/696) 4.8%(2/42) 6.1%(52/859) Gonadotropin dose, IU 2621 ± 945 2325 ± 894 2748 ± 1038 2300 ± 848 0.000a No. of oocytes retrieved 12.15 ± 7.53 15.09 ± 8.9 14.5 ± 9.35 15.29 ± 8.43 0.000a Blastocyst formation rate 0.60 ± 0.28 0.56 ± 0.28 0.59 ± 0.28 0.56 ± 0.29 0.313 Type of embryo transferred, n (%) Cleavage embryo 45.0%(203/451) 42.1%(293/696) 35.7%(15/42) 45.5%(391/859) 0.365 Blastocyst 55.0%(248/451) 57.9%(403/696) 64.3%(27/42) 54.5%(468/859) No. of embryos transferred 1.58 ± 0.57 1.71 ± 0.65 1.48 ± 0.51 1.78 ± 0.68 0.000a No. of good quality embryos transferred 1.15 ± 0.69 1.13 ± 0.78 0.93 ± 0.75 1.12 ± 0.78 0.287 Rate of good quality embryos transferred 83.8%(378/451) 78.3%(545/696) 69%(29/42) 78.9%(678/859) 0.033a Clinical Pregnancy 53.2%(240/451) 49.7%(346/696) 54.8%(23/42) 46.8%(402/859) 0.141 Live Birth 43.5%(196/451) 39.8%(277/696) 45.2%(19/42) 39.0%(335/859) 0.397 Early Miscarriage 15.4%(37/240) 18.2%(63/346) 17.4%(4/23) 15.4%(62/402) 0.732 Note: aP<0.05 bInfertility-free: Patients who did not meet the diagnostic criteria for infertility, mainly included patients treated with preimplantation genetic testing(PGT) cendometriosis ASRM stage: The American Society of Reproductive Medicine distinguishes four stages of endometriosis, where stage I and II are fairly mild types, and stages III and IV are advanced disease Page 6 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83 improve pregnancy outcomes by inhibiting hypothalamic pituitary axis function, enhancing pelvic microenviron - ment, and improving endometrial tolerance [ 5, 6]. How- ever, another study found no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes among NC, HRT, and GnRHa-HRT protocols for FET in endometriosis patients, which was consistent with our results. Further research is needed to assess the necessity and benefits of the GnRHa-HRT pro- tocol in FET for endometriosis patients, considering the heavier economic burden and longer duration of treat - ment. Similarly, our study found no significant differ - ences in pregnancy outcomes among different protocols for endometriosis patients complicated with adenomyo - sis, but previous research had conflicting results [ 16, 17]. The small number of cases in our study and the fact that other studies primarily focused on patients with adeno - myosis alone might explain the inconsistency in our findings. Our study found that multiple injections of GnRHa in the GnRHa-HRT protocol did not improve pregnancy outcomes and might increase the risk of early miscar - riage. While previous studies have been inconsistent about the use of the GnRHa ultralong protocol for IVF/ ICSI in patients with endometriosis [ 18, 19]. The lat - est ESHRE guidelines did not recommend the use of ultralong protocol to improve live birth rates [ 4]. Other studies have also found no improvement in pregnancy outcomes with the ultralong protocol in endometriosis patients and have shown that shortened GnRHa applica - tion for IVF is equally effective [ 20, 21]. The reason for the increased early miscarriage rate in the two injections of GnRHa group needs further investigation. Long-term use of GnRHa can negatively affect oocyte and embryo quality [ 25, 26], while inadequate progesterone levels may lead to early pregnancy loss or placental defects [ 27, 28]. However, the cases using multiple GnRHa injections in our study was significantly less than those using one injection, so the results might be biased. The advantages of this study were that it included the largest number of cycles compared with previous stud - ies, and it compared all commonly used endometrial preparation protocols. For the first time, we compared pregnancy outcomes in patients with endometriosis undergoing FET with different numbers of GnRHa injec - tions. This study was limited by its retrospective nature. The dosage and injections of GnRHa in the GnRHa-HRT protocol were not uniform, so there might be biases in interpreting the results.

For infertile women with endometriosis, the clinical outcomes of different endometrial preparation proto - cols during the FET cycle were similar. Whether it was a single injection of GnRHa or multiple injections, full or reduced dosage of GnRHa downregulation did not improve the clinical outcomes of the FET cycle. On the contrary, multiple injections of GnRHa increased the rate of early pregnancy miscarriage. Therefore, for infer - tile women with endometriosis, the endometrial prepa - ration protocol during the FET cycle might not require the GnRHa downregulation, it needs some well-designed prospective studies to further confirm. Table 2 Adjusted odds ratios of clinical outcomes Variable GnRHa-HRT vs. NC Adjusted OR (95% CI) GnRHa-HRT vs. HRT Adjusted OR (95% CI) HRT vs. NC Adjusted OR (95% CI) OI vs. NC Adjusted OR (95% CI) Clinical Pregnancya 1.166(0.904– 1.503) 1.072(0.828– 1.387) 1.088(0.885– 1.336) 1.347(0.711– 2.551) Live Birthb 1.16(0.897- 1.5) 1.157(0.892– 1.502) 1.002(0.813– 1.236) 1.272(0.671– 2.41) Early Miscarriagec 0.811(0.499– 1.318) 0.735(0.466– 1.16) 1.23(0.833– 1.816) 1.119(0.361– 3.464) Note: Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs are based on the multiple logistic regression model. No statistical difference for all results. P > 0.05 for all comparisons aAdjusted for Maternal age at FET, infertility diagnosis, BMI, endometriosis ASRM stage, endometriosis combined with adenomyosis, Infertility etiology (tubal factor, other), duration of infertility, No. of high quality embryos transferred, rate of high quality embryos transferred, Ovarian stimulation protocols, No. of oocytes retrieved, blastocyst formation rate bAdjusted for Maternal age at FET, infertility diagnosis, BMI, endometriosis ASRM stage, endometriosis combined with adenomyosis, Infertility etiology (tubal factor), duration of infertility, No. of high quality embryos transferred, rate of high quality embryos transferred, Ovarian stimulation protocols, No. of oocytes retrieved, blastocyst formation rate cAdjusted for Maternal age at FET, infertility diagnosis, BMI, endometriosis ASRM stage, endometriosis combined with adenomyosis, duration of infertility, blastocyst formation rate Page 7 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83 Table 3 General characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of patients with different endometrial preparation protocols after PSM NC and GnRHa-HRT after PSM HRT and GnRHa-HRT after PSM NC GnRHa-HRT P value HRT GnRHa-HRT P value No. Of cases 312 312 - 332 332 - Maternal age at FET, years 32.27 ± 3.46 32.18 ± 3.56 0.959 32.12 ± 3.47 32.3 ± 3.52 0.479 Duration of infertility, years 3.68 ± 2.44 3.8 ± 2.5 0.562 3.61 ± 2.56 3.68 ± 2.47 0.542 Body mass index, kg/m2 20.52 ± 2.36 20.6 ± 2.47 0.52 20.73 ± 2.27 20.66 ± 2.38 0.707 Infertility diagnosis Primary infertility, n (%) 60.6%(189/312) 63.5%(198/312) 0.73 59.3%(197/332) 59.3%(197/332) 0.969 Secondary infertil- ity, n (%) 38.1%(119/312) 35.6%(111/312) 38%(126/332) 38.3%(127/332) Infertility-free 1.3%(4/312) 1%(3/312) 2.7%(9/332) 2.4%(8/332) Infertility etiology, n (%) Tubal factor 58%(181/312) 54.2%(169/312) 0.333 55.4%(184/332) 50.9%(169/332) 0.243 Male factor 47.8%(149/312) 47.4%(148/312) 0.936 52.4%(174/332) 50.6%(168/332) 0.641 Other 27.9%(87/312) 30.8%(96/312) 0.429 32.8%(109/332) 34.3%(114/332) 0.681 endometriosis ASRM stage ASRMI-II 22.1%(69/312) 21.2%(66/312) 0.771 18.7%(62/332) 19.6%(65/332) 0.767 ASRMIII-IV 77.9%(243/312) 78.8%(246/312) 81.3%(270/332) 80.4%(267/332) endometriosis complicated with adenomyosis 6.7%(21/312) 6.1%(19/312) 0.744 6.9%(23/332) 6%(20/332) 0.636 Ovarian stimulation protocols, n (%) Long GnRH-a 66%(206/312) 66.3%(207/312) 0.986 64.5%(214/332) 64.2%(213/332) 0.951 GnRH-a ultra-long 5.1%(16/312) 4.8%(15/312) 6.9%(23/332) 6.3%(21/332) GnRH antagonist 21.2%(66/312) 20.5%(64/312) 19.9%(66/332) 21.4%(71/332) Other protocols 7.7%(24/312) 8.3%(26/312) 8.7%(29/332) 8.1%(27/332) Gonadotropin dose, IU 2338.82 ± 878.17 2532.28 ± 966.03 0.009a 2471.42 ± 936.87 2533.49 ± 979.57 0.433 No. of oocytes retrieved 12.99 ± 7.84 13.37 ± 7.84 0.358 13.08 ± 8.15 12.6 ± 7.76 0.615 Blastocyst formation rate 0.61 ± 0.29 0.59 ± 0.26 0.389 0.60 ± 0.27 0.60 ± 0.28 0.936 Type of embryo transferred, n (%) Cleavage embryo 44.9%(140/312) 45.5%(142/312) 0.872 47.9%(159/332) 47.6%(158/332) 0.938 Blastocyst 55.1%(172/312) 54.5%(170/312) 52.1%(173/332) 52.4%(174/332) No. of embryos transferred 1.69 ± 0.66 1.59 ± 0.56 0.036a 1.71 ± 0.62 1.60 ± 0.55 0.018a No. of good quality embryos transferred 1.11 ± 0.69 1.14 ± 0.71 0.573 1.18 ± 0.69 1.17 ± 0.71 0.814 Rate of good quality embryos transferred 81.7%(255/312) 82.4%(257/312) 0.835 84.3%(280/332) 83.1%(276/332) 0.674 Clinical Pregnancy 48.1%(150/312) 53.5%(167/312) 0.173 52.1%(173/332) 50.9%(169/332) 0.756 Live Birth 41.7%(130/312) 43.6%(136/312) 0.627 42.2%(140/332) 43.1%(143/332) 0.814 Early Miscarriage 12.7%(19/150) 15%(25/167) 0.554 17.9%(31/173) 11.8%(20/169) 0.114 Note: aP<0.05 Table 4 Adjusted odds ratios of pregnancy outcomes in endometriosis patients with GnRHa-HRT endometrial preparation protocol Variable Two injections of GnRHa vs. One injection of GnRHa Three injections of GnRHa vs. One injection of GnRHa Two injections of GnRHa vs. Three injection of GnRHa Adjusted OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI) Clinical Pregnancya 0.867(0.533–1.412) 0.887(0.431–1.828) 0.977(0.444–2.154) Live Birthb 0.641(0.391–1.052) 0.642(0.305–1.35) 0.999(0.442–2.261) Early Miscarriagec 3.116(1.079–8.998)d 2.472(0.644–9.488) 1.26(0.298–5.34) Note: Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs are based on the multiple logistic regression model. No statistical difference for all results aAdjusted for Maternal age at FET, endometrial preparation protocols, infertility diagnosis, BMI, endometriosis ASRM stage, endometriosis combined with adenomyosis, rate of high quality embryos transferred, Ovarian stimulation protocols, No. of oocytes retrieved, blastocyst formation rate bAdjusted for Maternal age at FET, endometrial preparation protocols, infertility diagnosis, BMI, endometriosis ASRM stage, endometriosis combined with adenomyosis, infertility etiology (tubal factor, other factors), No. of oocytes retrieved, blastocyst formation rate cAdjusted for Maternal age at FET, endometrial preparation protocols, infertility diagnosis, BMI, endometriosis ASRM stage, endometriosis combined with adenomyosis, infertility etiology (tubal factor, male factor, other factors), No. of high quality embryos transferred, Gonadotropin dose dP<0.05 Page 8 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83 Abbreviations FET Frozen-thawed embryo transfer GnRHa-HRT Gonadotropinreleasing hormone agonist-hormone replacement therapy HRT Hormone replacement therapy OI Ovulation induction NC Natural cycle PSM Propensity score matching ESHRE European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology ART Assisted reproductive technology E2 Oestradiol P Progesterone LH Luteinizing hormone HCG Human chorionic gonadotropin HMG Human menopausal gonadotropin ASRM American Society for Reproductive Medicine Gn Gonadotropin PGT Preimplantation genetic testing AORs Adjusted odds ratios

Not applicable. Authors’ contributions JDY performed the data processing and analysis, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. YXW was responsible for the revision of the manuscript.DPL was a major contributor in data collection and processing. XRH was a major contributor in data analysis.BP was a major contributor in application of statistical methods.ZYW designed the study and was responsible for the revision of the manuscript and providing financial support. Funding This work was supported by the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine(Grant No.2012A061400003). Data availability The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The institutional ethics committee (The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University) approved the study, and informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of this study. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author details 1Reproductive Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58 Zhongshan Er Road, 510080 Guangzhou, China 2Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China Received: 9 July 2023 / Accepted: 24 August 2023

1. Coccia ME, Nardone L, Rizzello F. Endometriosis and infertility: a Long-Life Approach to Preserve Reproductive Integrity. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022. 19(10). 2. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive. Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):591–8. 3. Dunselman GA, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endo- metriosis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(3):400–12. 4. members of the Endometriosis Guideline Core. ESHRE guideline: endome- triosis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(2):hoac009. 5. Beloosesky R, et al. Ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization with or without the long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol: effect on cycle duration and outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(1):166–8. 6. Ferrero S, et al. GnRH analogue remarkably down-regulates inflammatory proteins in peritoneal fluid proteome of women with endometriosis. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(4):223–31. 7. Luo L, et al. Pregnancy outcome and cost-effectiveness comparisons of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer with or without GnRH agonist pretreatment for polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2021;128(4):667–74. 8. Schmidt CL, et al. Transfer of cryopreserved-thawed embryos: the natural cycle versus controlled preparation of the endometrium with gonadotropin- releasing hormone agonist and exogenous estradiol and progesterone (GEEP). Fertil Steril. 1989;52(4):609–16. 9. Simon A, et al. Transfer of frozen-thawed embryos in artificially pre- pared cycles with and without prior gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist suppression: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(1O):2712–7. 10. Keltz MD, et al. Baseline cyst formation after luteal phase gonadotropin- releasing hormone agonist administration is linked to poor in vitro fertiliza- tion outcome. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(3):568–72. 11. Xu J, et al. Endometrial Preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer with or without pretreatment with GnRH agonist: a randomized controlled trial at two Centers. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:722253. 12. Cao X, et al. The effectiveness of different down-regulating protocols on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in endometriosis: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):16. 13. Guo Y, et al. Which endometrial preparation protocol provides better preg- nancy and perinatal outcomes for endometriosis patients in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A retrospective study on 1413 patients. J Ovarian Res. 2023;16(1):7. 14. Eisenberg VH et al. Sonographic Signs of Adenomyosis Are Prevalent in Women Undergoing Surgery for Endometriosis and May Suggest a Higher Risk of Infertility Biomed Res Int, 2017. 2017: p. 8967803. 15. Chen M, et al. Impact of Gonadotropin-Releasing hormone agonist pre- treatment on the cumulative live birth rate in Infertile Women with adeno- myosis treated with IVF/ICSI: a retrospective cohort study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:318. 16. Zhang W, et al. Effect of GnRH-a pretreatment before frozen-thawed embryo transfer on pregnancy outcome of adenomyosis-associated infertile patients with 56 cm(3) = uterine volume </=100 cm(3)</at. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(9):509. 17. Li M, et al. Effects of artificial cycles with and without gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist pretreatment on frozen embryo transfer outcomes in patients with adenomyosis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):19326. 18. Niu Z, et al. Long-term pituitary downregulation before frozen embryo transfer could improve pregnancy outcomes in women with adenomyosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(12):1026–30. 19. Georgiou EX et al. Long-term GnRH agonist therapy before in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for improving fertility outcomes in women with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019. 2019(11). 20. Tomassetti C, et al. The ultra-long study: a randomized controlled trial evaluating long-term GnRH downregulation prior to ART in women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(10):2676–86. 21. Kong H, et al. Efficacy and safety of in Vitro fertilization (IVF)/Intracyto- plasmic sperm injection (ICSI) among patients with Endometriosis after a shortened protocol of long-term pituitary downregulation. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:4377–83. 22. Damario MA, Rock JA. Classification of endometriosis. Semin Reprod Endocri- nol. 1997;15(3):235–44. 23. Li X, et al. Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist pretreatment on frozen embryo transfer outcomes in artificial cycles: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022. 24. Chang Y, et al. Association of embryo transfer type with infertility in endo- metriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(5):1033–43. Page 9 of 9 Yang et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2023) 21:83 25. Surrey ES, et al. GnRH agonist administration prior to embryo transfer in freeze-all cycles of patients with endometriosis or aberrant endometrial integrin expression. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(2):145–51. 26. Tesarik J, Mendoza C. Effects of exogenous LH administration during ovarian stimulation of pituitary down-regulated young oocyte donors on oocyte yield and developmental competence. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3129–37. 27. Li C, et al. Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):341. 28. Vinsonneau L, et al. Impact of endometrial preparation on early preg- nancy loss and live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer: a large multicenter cohort study (14 421 frozen cycles). Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(2):hoac007. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.