Volume 18, Issue 7 (July 2020)                   IJRM 2020, 18(7): 491-500 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Teh W T, Polyakov A, Garrett C, Edgar D, Mcbain J, Rogers P. Reduced live birth rates in frozen versus fresh single cleavage stage embryo transfer cycles: A cross -sectional study. IJRM 2020; 18 (7) :491-500
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-1429-en.html
Reduced live birth rates in frozen versus fresh single cleavage stage embryo transfer cycles: A cross -sectional study
Wan Tinn Teh * 1, Alex Polyakov2 , Claire Garrett3 , David Edgar2 , John Mcbain4 , Peter Rogers5
1- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Reproductive Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. , wantinn.teh@mivf.com.au
2- Reproductive Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
3- Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
4- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Reproductive Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
5- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract:   (2307 Views)

Background: Studies have suggested that embryo-endometrial developmental asynchrony caused by slow-growing embryos can be corrected by freezing the embryo and transferring it back in a subsequent cycle. Therefore, we hypothesized that live birth rates (LBR) would be higher in frozen embryo transfer (FET) compared with fresh embryo transfers.
Objective: To compare LBR between fresh and FET cycles.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of 10,744 single autologous embryo transfer cycles that used a single cleavage stage embryo was performed. Multivariate analysis was performed to compare LBR between FET and fresh cycles, after correcting for various confounding factors. Sub-analysis was also performed in cycles using slow embryos.
Results: Both LBR (19.13% vs 14.13%) and clinical pregnancy (22.48% vs 16.25%) rates (CPR) were higher in the fresh cycle group (p < 0.00). Multivariate analysis for confounding factors also confirmed that women receiving a frozen-thawed embryo had a significantly lower LBR rate compared to those receiving a fresh embryo (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.86, p < 0.00). In the sub-analysis of 1,154 cycles using slow embryos, there was no statistical difference in LBR (6.40% vs 6.26%, p = 0.92) or CPR (8.10% vs 7.22%, p = 0.58) between the two groups.
Conclusion: This study shows a lower LBR in FET cycles when compared to fresh cycles. Our results suggest that any potential gains in LBR due to improved embryo-endometrial synchrony following FET are lost, presumably due to freeze-thaw process-related embryo damage.
 

Keywords: Fresh, Frozen embryo transfer, Live birth, Embryo, Transfer.
Full-Text [PDF 281 kb]   (986 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (424 Views)  
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Fertility & Infertility
References
1. Mandelbaum J, Junca AM, Plachot M, Cohen J, Alvarez S, Cornet D, et al. The implantation window in humans after fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Adv Assist Reprod Technol 1990: 729-735. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4613-0645-0_77]
2. Navot D, Scott RT, Droesch K, Veeck LL, Liu HC, Rosenwaks Z. The window of embryo transfer and the efficiency of human conception in vitro. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 114-118. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)54069-2]
3. Teh WT, McBain J, Rogers P. What is the contribution of embryo-endometrial asynchrony to implantation failure? J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33: 1419-1430. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-016-0773-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR. Time of implantation of the conceptus and loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1796-1799. [DOI:10.1056/NEJM199906103402304] [PMID]
5. Dukic V, Hogan JW. A hierarchical Bayesian approach to modeling embryo implantation following in vitro fertilization. Biostatistics 2002; 3: 361-377. [DOI:10.1093/biostatistics/3.3.361] [PMID]
6. Rogers PA, Milne BJ, Trounson AO. A model to show human uterine receptivity and embryo viability following ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1986; 3: 93-98. [DOI:10.1007/BF01139353] [PMID]
7. Bourgain C, Ubaldi F, Tavaniotou A, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem AC, Devroey P. Endometrial hormone receptors and proliferation index in the periovulatory phase of stimulated embryo transfer cycles in comparison with natural cycles and relation to clinical pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 237-244. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03228-4]
8. Noci I, Borri P, Coccia ME, Criscuoli L, Scarselli G, Messeri G, et al. Hormonal patterns, steroid receptors and morphological pictures of endometrium in hyperstimulated IVF cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997; 75: 215-220. [DOI:10.1016/S0301-2115(97)00126-7]
9. Meyer WR, Novotny DB, Fritz MA, Beyler SA, Wolf LJ, Lessey BA. Effect of exogenous gonadotropins on endometrial maturation in oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 109-114. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00390-2]
10. Seif MW, Pearson JM, Ibrahim ZH, Buckley CH, Aplin JD, Buck P, et al. Endometrium in in-vitro fertilization cycles: morphological and functional differentiation in the implantation phase. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 6-11. [DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137559] [PMID]
11. Kolibianakis EM, Devroey P. The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation. Reprod BioMed Online 2002; 5 (Suppl.): 26-35. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(11)60214-9]
12. Lass A, Peat D, Avery S, Brinsden P. Histological evaluation of endometrium on the day of oocyte retrieval after gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist-follicle stimulating hormone ovulation induction for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 3203-3205. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/13.11.3203] [PMID]
13. Ubaldi F, Bourgain C, Tournaye H, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. Endometrial evaluation by aspiration biopsy on the day of oocyte retrieval in the embryo transfer cycles in patients with serum progesterone rise during the follicular phase. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 521-526. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(97)80080-5]
14. Van Vaerenbergh I, Van Lommel L, Ghislain V, In't Veld P, Schuit F, Fatemi HM, et al. In GnRH antagonist/rec-FSH stimulated cycles, advanced endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte retrieval correlates with altered gene expression. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 1085-1091. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/den501] [PMID]
15. Chai J, Lee KF, Ng EH, Yeung WS, Ho PC. Ovarian stimulation modulates steroid receptor expression and spheroid attachment in peri-implantation endometria: studies on natural and stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 764-768. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.015] [PMID]
16. Mirkin S, Nikas G, Hsiu JG, Diaz J, Oehninger S. Gene expression profiles and structural/functional features of the peri-implantation endometrium in natural and gonadotropin-stimulated cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89: 5742-5752. [DOI:10.1210/jc.2004-0605] [PMID]
17. Papanikolaou EG, Bourgain C, Kolibianakis E, Tournaye H, Devroey P. Steroid receptor expression in late follicular phase endometrium in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles is already altered, indicating initiation of early luteal phase transformation in the absence of secretory changes. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1541-1547. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deh793] [PMID]
18. Evans J, Hannan NJ, Hincks C, Rombauts LJ, Salamonsen LA. Defective soil for a fertile seed? altered endometrial development is detrimental to pregnancy success. PLoS One 2012; 7: e53098. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0053098] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Kolibianakis E, Bourgain C, Albano C, Osmanagaoglu K, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists, and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 1025-1029. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03323-X]
20. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Ross R. Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of day 5 or day 6 blastocysts may reflect differences in embryo-endometrium synchrony. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 20-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.08.092] [PMID]
21. Chen ZJ, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 523-533. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1513873] [PMID]
22. Edgar DH, Karani J, Gook DA. Increasing dehydration of human cleavage-stage embryos prior to slow cooling significantly increases cryosurvival. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19: 521-525. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.06.002] [PMID]
23. Edgar DH, Bourne H, Speirs AL, McBain JC. A quantitative analysis of the impact of cryopreservation on the implantation potential of human early cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 175-179. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.1.175] [PMID]
24. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 344-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.059 [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.050]
25. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 516-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.059 [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.050] [PMID]
26. Aflatoonian A, Karimzadeh Maybodi MA, Aflatoonian N, Tabibnejad N, Amir-Arjmand MH, Soleimani M, et al. Perinatal outcome in fresh versus frozen embryo transfer in ART cycles. Int J Reprod Biomed 2016; 14: 167-172. [DOI:10.29252/ijrm.14.3.167]
27. Aflatoonian A, Mansoori Moghaddam F, Mashayekhy M, Mohamadian F. Comparison of early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after frozen and fresh embryo transfer in ART cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010; 27: 695-700. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-010-9470-z] [PMID] [PMCID]
28. Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, Zhang H, Wei D, Zhang Y, et al. Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 126-136. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1705334] [PMID]
29. Vuong LN, Dang VQ, Ho TM, Huynh BG, Ha DT, Pham TD, et al. IVF transfer of fresh or frozen embryos in women without polycystic ovaries. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 137-147. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1703768] [PMID]
30. Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Fortini D, Selman HA, Feliciani E. Elective cryopreservation of all pronucleate embryos in women at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: efficiency and safety. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1457-1460. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/14.6.1457] [PMID]
31. Aflatoonian A, Mansoori-Torshizi M, Farid Mojtahedi M, Aflatoonian B, Khalili MA, Amir-Arjmand MH, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles among high responder women: A randomized, multi-center study. Int J Reprod Biomed 2018; 16: 9-18. [DOI:10.29252/ijrm.16.1.9]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb