Abstract
This study reports an increase in implantation rates with the use of
laser acupuncture however the overall pregnancy rates for laser or
needle acupuncture were not significantly different to control groups.
The control groups in this trial had a high clinical pregnancy rate ie
over 50%.
DESIGN: Prospect randomized double blind and placebo controlled.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: On the day of transfer, participants were
randomly assigned to a study group; needle acupuncture (AC), laser
acupuncture (LZ AC), sham laser acupuncture (LZ sham), relaxation (RX),
or no treatment (NT). The AC and LZ AC puncture groups were considered
treatment groups, the RX controls for the additional rest before and
after transfer, and NT is the non-intervention group. Most
significantly, the LZ Sham group provided an important control group.
The laser acupuncture device was randomly preprogrammed per case to
either fire (and provide LZ AC) or to not fire and thus provide a true
double blind control group (LZ sham). It was not possible for the
patient or acupuncturist to know if the laser fired. No contact oocurs
with the patient in laser acupuncture so there is no acupressure effect
or contact with the wrong meridians. All treatments were administered
for 25 minutes before and after embryo transfer. Outcomes were compared
by Chi-square and multiple logistic regression analysis to control for
the potential confounders including female age, embryo quality, and day
of transfer (Table 1).
RESULTS: All treatments were well tolerated. No differences in terms of
patient demographics, cycle type, stimulation outcomes, embryo number
and quality, day of embryo transfer, transferring physician, or
acupuncturist were found between the 5 study groups. Implantation rates
were significantly improved with laser acupuncture. Traditional needle
acupuncture had outcomes equivalent to the 3 control groups.
Subanalyses of patient age and embryo transfer day produced similar
findings with laser acupuncture enhancing outcome rates.
CONCLUSIONS: This large prospective randomized and well controlled
study consistently demonstrated benefit to LZ AC. Treatment was well
tolerated and significantly improved implantation rates.
Table 1.
Clinical Outcomes (%) Rates
AC LZ AC LZ Sham RX NT P Values
Impl 28.9 33.7 26.8 24.9 30.2 < 0.05
Chem Preg 61.5 60.9 53.0 53.7 60.4 0.22
Clin Preg 51.5 54.5 43.9 45.3 50.3 0.19
Cont Preg 39.0 42.1 35.4 37.4 39.6 0.71
