Freeze-all Cycle for All Normal Responders?

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2016 Nov 7

PMID 27817036

Citations 16

Authors

Matheus Roque

Marcello Valle

Fernando Guimaraes

Marcos Sampaio

Selmo Geber

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the freeze-all strategy in subgroups of normal responders, to assess whether this strategy is beneficial regardless of ovarian response, and to evaluate the possibility of implementing an individualized embryo transfer (iET) based on ovarian response.

Methods: This was an observational, cohort study performed in a private IVF center. A total of 938 IVF cycles were included in this study. The patients were submitted to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and a cleavage-stage day 3 embryo transfer. We performed a comparison of outcomes between the fresh embryo transfer (n = 523) and the freeze-all cycles (n = 415). The analysis was performed in two subgroups of patients based on the number of retrieved oocytes: Group 1 (4-9 oocytes) and Group 2 (10-15 oocytes).

Result(s): In Group 1 (4-9 retrieved oocytes), the implantation rates (IR) were 17.9 and 20.5% (P = 0.259) in the fresh and freeze-all group, respectively; the ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) were 31 and 33% (P = 0.577) in the fresh and freeze-all group, respectively. In Group 2 (10-15 oocytes), the IR were 22.1 and 30.1% (P = 0.028) and the OPR were 34 and 47% (P = 0.021) in the fresh and freeze-all groups, respectively.

Conclusion(s): Although the freeze-all policy may be related to better in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in normal responders, these potential advantages decrease with worsening ovarian response. Patients with poorer ovarian response do not benefit from the freeze-all strategy.

Citing Articles

From patient classification to optimized treatment in ART: the AMPLITUDE Delphi consensus.

Blockeel C, Guivarch-Leveque A, Rongieres C, Swierkowski-Blanchard N, Porcu-Buisson G, Yazbeck C Front Reprod Health. 2024; 6:1467322.

PMID: 39399814 PMC: 11466932. DOI: 10.3389/frph.2024.1467322.

Pregnancy Outcomes after Frozen Embryo Transfer and Fresh Embryo Transfer in Women of Advanced Maternal Age: Single-Center Experience.

Chen Y, Zhou J, Chen Y, Yang J, Hao Y, Feng T J Clin Med. 2022; 11(21).

PMID: 36362623 PMC: 9654836. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216395.

Fresh or Frozen Embryo Transfer in The Antagonist In Vitro Fertilization Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Seyedoshohadaei F, Rahmani K, Allahveisi A, Rezaei M, Rezaie M, Zandvakili F Int J Fertil Steril. 2022; 16(4):256-262.

PMID: 36273310 PMC: 9627010. DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2022.538452.1181.

Fresh elective frozen embryo transfer: Cumulative live birth rates of 7,236 IVF cycles.

Le T, Ong P, Nguyen Q, Roque M JBRA Assist Reprod. 2022; 26(3):450-459.

PMID: 35191632 PMC: 9355431. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20210094.

Elevated serum progesterone does not impact euploidy rates in PGT-A patients.

Pardinas M, Nohales M, Labarta E, de Los Santos J, Mercader A, Remohi J J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(7):1819-1826.

PMID: 34008094 PMC: 8324650. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02197-y.

References

Herrero L, Martinez M, Garcia-Velasco J . Current status of human oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 23(4):245-50. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32834874e2. View

Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L . Can fresh embryo transfers be replaced by cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in assisted reproductive cycles? A randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010; 27(7):357-63. PMC: 2922708. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-010-9412-9. View

Shapiro B, Daneshmand S, Garner F, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S . High ongoing pregnancy rates after deferred transfer through bipronuclear oocyte cryopreservation and post-thaw extended culture. Fertil Steril. 2008; 92(5):1594-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.103. View

Siristatidis C, Sergentanis T, Kanavidis P, Trivella M, Sotiraki M, Mavromatis I . Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF: impact on ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 19(2):105-23. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dms051. View

Devroey P, Polyzos N, Blockeel C . An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(10):2593-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der251. View

Clarke J, van Rumste M, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Mol B, Herbison P . Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates?. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(5):1647-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018. View

Edgar D, Gook D . A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18(5):536-54. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dms016. View

Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Kato O, Leibo S . Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 11(3):300-8. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60837-1. View

Almodin C, Minguetti-Camara V, Paixao C, Pereira P . Embryo development and gestation using fresh and vitrified oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(5):1192-8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq042. View

10.

Chen Z, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y . Fresh versus Frozen Embryos for Infertility in the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(6):523-33. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1513873. View

11.

Roque M, Valle M, Guimaraes F, Sampaio M, Geber S . Cost-Effectiveness of the Freeze-All Policy. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2016; 19(3):125-30. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20150028. View

12.

Fatemi H, Popovic-Todorovic B . Implantation in assisted reproduction: a look at endometrial receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 27(5):530-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.05.018. View

13.

AbdelHafez F, Desai N, Abou-Setta A, Falcone T, Goldfarb J . Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 20(2):209-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.11.013. View

14.

Blockeel C, Drakopoulos P, Santos-Ribeiro S, Polyzos N, Tournaye H . A fresh look at the freeze-all protocol: a SWOT analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(3):491-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev339. View

15.

Shapiro B, Daneshmand S, Garner F, 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(2):344-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.050. View

16.

Rodriguez-Purata J, Lee J, Whitehouse M, Duke M, Grunfeld L, Sandler B . Reproductive outcome is optimized by genomic embryo screening, vitrification, and subsequent transfer into a prepared synchronous endometrium. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016; 33(3):401-412. PMC: 4785167. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0647-y. View

17.

Ferraretti A, La Marca A, Fauser B, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L . ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(7):1616-24. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der092. View

18.

Kolibianakis E, Bourgain C, Albano C, Osmanagaoglu K, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem A . 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(5):1025-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03323-x. View

19.

Achache H, Revel A . Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation. Hum Reprod Update. 2006; 12(6):731-46. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dml004. View

20.

Labarta E, Martinez-Conejero J, Alama P, Horcajadas J, Pellicer A, Simon C . Endometrial receptivity is affected in women with high circulating progesterone levels at the end of the follicular phase: a functional genomics analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(7):1813-25. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der126. View