Hypnosis versus Diazepam for Embryo Transfer: A Randomized Controlled Study

ArticleinThe American journal of clinical hypnosis 55(4):378-86 · April 2013with32 Reads
Impact Factor: 0.53 · DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2012.747949 · Source: PubMed
Abstract

Levitas et al. (200613. Levitas , E. , Parmet , A. , Lunenfeld , E. , Bentov , Y. , Burstein , E. , Friger , M. and Potashnick , G. 2006. Impact of hypnosis during embryo transfer on the outcome of in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer: A case-control study. Fertility and Sterility, 85: 1404–1408. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]View all references) showed in a cohort study that hypnosis during embryo transfer (ET) increased pregnancy ratio by 76%. In order to evaluate hypnosis during ET in a general population, the authors performed a randomized prospective controlled study comparing diazepam (usual premedication) administered before ET plus muscle relaxation versus hypnosis plus placebo in 94 patients. Additionally, the authors studied anxiety pre and post ET. Anxiety scores were not different in the two groups before and after ET. No difference in pregnancy and birth ratio was found in the two groups. Hypnosis during ET is as effective as diazepam in terms of pregnancy ratio and anxiolytic effects, but with fewer side effects and should be routinely available.

    • "Apart from the above four studies, the effects on anxiety within the intervention group have been described in two studies in which CBT (d = 0.95) and counseling (d = 0.34) were adopted [25, 33]. Another study revealed that there was no significant difference between the effects of hypnosis and diazepam on anxiety levels in women undergoing embryo transfer [36]. The remaining eight studies showed no effects on the anxiety levels of patients undergoing IVF treatment [26, 30–32, 35, 37, 38, 41]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of psychosocial interventions on the mental health, pregnancy rates, and marital function of infertile couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF), as determined through RCT studies. Methods: Using the electronic databases PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and CAJ, a systematic literature search was conducted in July 2015. MeSH terms, key words, and free words such as "infertility," "fertilization in vitro," "psychotherapy," "intervention," "anxiety," "depression," and "marital satisfaction" were used to identify all potential studies. The quality of the studies that were included was assessed using the risk of bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Descriptive analysis was adopted to synthesize the results. Results: A total of 20 randomized controlled trials were included in this review. There were reports of positive effects on the anxiety levels, pregnancy rates, or marital function of infertile couples in six studies that adopted different psychosocial approaches, including mind body intervention (Eastern body-mind-spirit, Integrative body-mind-spirit, and Mind/body intervention), cognitive behavioral therapy, group psychotherapy, and harp therapy. However, there were methodological or practical issues related to measurement points and attrition rates in these studies. None of these interventions were found to be efficacious in relieving the depression or stress of individuals or couples undergoing IVF treatment. None of the included studies tackled or measured the mental health status of the couples during the most stressful time of waiting for the pregnancy results of their treatment. Conclusions: A complex intervention, based on sound evidence, should be developed targeting both females and males of infertile couples undergoing IVF treatment, particularly during the stressful period of waiting for the results of the pregnancy test result and after failed cycles.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2016 · Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
    0Comments 0Citations
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To evaluate the evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for improving pregnancy rates and reducing distress for couples in treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART). Systematic review and meta-analysis. PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library between 1978 and April 2014. Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated the effect of any psychosocial intervention on clinical pregnancy and/or distress in infertile participants, used a quantitative approach and were published in English. Study characteristics and results were extracted and the methodological quality was assessed. Effect sizes (ES; Hedges g) were pooled using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I(2), and publication bias was evaluated using Egger's method. Possible moderators and mediators were explored with meta-analyses of variances (ANOVAs) and meta-regression. We identified 39 eligible studies (total N=2746 men and women) assessing the effects of psychological treatment on pregnancy rates and/or adverse psychological outcomes, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, infertility stress and marital function. Statistically significant and robust overall effects of psychosocial intervention were found for both clinical pregnancy (risk ratio=2.01; CI 1.48 to 2.73; p<0.001) and combined psychological outcomes (Hedges g=0.59; CI 0.38 to 0.80; p=0.001). The pooled ES for psychological outcomes were generally larger for women (g: 0.51 to 0.73) than men (0.13 to 0.34), but the difference only reached statistical significance for depressive symptoms (p=0.004). Meta-regression indicated that larger reductions in anxiety were associated with greater improvement in pregnancy rates (Slope 0.19; p=0.004). No clear-cut differences were found between effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT; g=0.84), mind-body interventions (0.61) and other intervention types (0.50). The present meta-analysis suggests that psychosocial interventions for couples in treatment for infertility, in particular CBT, could be efficacious, both in reducing psychological distress and in improving clinical pregnancy rates. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · BMJ Open
    0Comments 12Citations