Live Birth Rates in Day 5 Fresh Versus Vitrified Single Blastocyst Transfer Cycles: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Overview

Journal Int J Reprod Biomed

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2023 May 1

PMID 37122887

Authors

Violet Kieu

Alex Polyakov

Genia Rozen

Daniel Lantsberg

Catharyn Stern

Wan Tinn Teh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The use of frozen embryo transfers (FET) in assisted reproduction has increased worldwide. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a fresh transfer may impair endometrial-embryo synchronicity. However, there is conflicting evidence on live birth rates (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR).

Objective: To compare LBRs and CPRs between single autologous day 5 fresh vs. vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles, to investigate the impact of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation on embryo-endometrium asynchrony.

Materials And Methods: A large cross-sectional analysis of 6002 embryo transfers (ET) comprised 3774 fresh and 2228 FET cycles from 2016 to 2019. Multivariate and subgroup analysis were performed for high responders ( 20 oocytes).

Results: Univariate analysis showed no difference in LBR (28.3% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.43) and CPR (32.2% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.30); however, multivariate analysis demonstrated significantly lower LBR (OR 0.864, p = 0.046, 95% CI 0.749-0.997) and CPR (OR 0.852, p = 0.024, 95% CI 0.742-0.979) in FET compared to fresh ETs. Younger participant age, previous in vitro fertilization pregnancy, advanced blastocyst expansion, higher trophectoderm quality, and lower cumulative number of ETs all improved the odds of LBR and CPR. Conventional in vitro fertilization, rather than intracytoplasmic sperm injection, improved CPR but not LBR. Body mass index affected neither LBR nor CPR. In the subgroup, multivariate analysis of high responders showed no difference in LBR or CPR.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates relatively higher LBR and CPR of nearly 14% for fresh ETs compared to FETs, in multivariate analysis. A universal freeze-all strategy, without appropriate indication, may lead to suboptimal outcomes. In high responders, freeze-all cycles may be beneficial, as outcomes appear similar.

Citing Articles

An additive opinion to the committee opinion of ASRM and SART on the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

Gleicher N, Barad D, Patrizio P, Gayete-Lafuente S, Gayete-Lafuente S, Weghofer A J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 42(1):71-80.

PMID: 39693036 PMC: 11805733. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03318-z.

References

Pakes C, Volovsky M, Rozen G, Agresta F, Gardner D, Polyakov A . Comparing pregnancy outcomes between natural cycles and artificial cycles following frozen-thaw embryo transfers. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020; 60(5):804-809. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13213. View

Gat I, Shlush E, Quach K, Librach C . The continuum of high ovarian response: a rational approach to the management of high responder patient subgroups. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2015; 61(6):336-44. DOI: 10.3109/19396368.2015.1089607. View

Venetis C, Kolibianakis E, Bosdou J, Lainas G, Sfontouris I, Tarlatzis B . Basal serum progesterone and history of elevated progesterone on the day of hCG administration are significant predictors of late follicular progesterone elevation in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(8):1859-65. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew141. View

Glujovsky D, Quinteiro Retamar A, Alvarez Sedo C, Ciapponi A, Cornelisse S, Blake D . Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 5:CD002118. PMC: 9119424. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6. View

Smith A, Tilling K, Lawlor D, Nelson S . Live birth rates and perinatal outcomes when all embryos are frozen compared with conventional fresh and frozen embryo transfer: a cohort study of 337,148 in vitro fertilisation cycles. BMC Med. 2019; 17(1):202. PMC: 6852977. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1429-z. View

Teh W, Polyakov A, Garrett C, Edgar D, McBain J, Adrian Walton Rogers P . Reduced live birth rates in frozen versus fresh single cleavage stage embryo transfer cycles: A cross -sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2020; 18(7):491-500. PMC: 7385911. DOI: 10.18502/ijrm.v13i7.7366. View

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 transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96(2):516-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.059. View

Seif M, Pearson J, Ibrahim Z, Buckley C, Aplin J, Buck P . Endometrium in in-vitro fertilization cycles: morphological and functional differentiation in the implantation phase. Hum Reprod. 1992; 7(1):6-11. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137559. View

Wei D, Liu J, Sun Y, Shi Y, Zhang B, Liu J . Frozen versus fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulatory women: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019; 393(10178):1310-1318. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32843-5. View

10.

Ferraretti A, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Fortini D, Selman H, Feliciani E . Elective cryopreservation of all pronucleate embryos in women at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: efficiency and safety. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14(6):1457-60. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/14.6.1457. View

11.

Bosdou J, Venetis C, Tarlatzis B, Grimbizis G, Kolibianakis E . Higher probability of live-birth in high, but not normal, responders after first frozen-embryo transfer in a freeze-only cycle strategy compared to fresh-embryo transfer: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2019; 34(3):491-505. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey388. View

12.

Zaat T, Zagers M, Mol F, Goddijn M, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S . Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 2:CD011184. PMC: 8095009. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011184.pub3. View

13.

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

14.

Stormlund S, Sopa N, Zedeler A, Bogstad J, Praetorius L, Nielsen H . Freeze-all versus fresh blastocyst transfer strategy during in vitro fertilisation in women with regular menstrual cycles: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020; 370:m2519. PMC: 7399608. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2519. View

15.

Meyer W, Novotny D, Fritz M, Beyler S, Wolf L, Lessey B . Effect of exogenous gonadotropins on endometrial maturation in oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 1999; 71(1):109-14. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00390-2. View

16.

Mirkin S, Nikas G, Hsiu J, 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(11):5742-52. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-0605. View

17.

Wyns C, Bergh C, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka M, Motrenko T . ART in Europe, 2016: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 2020(3):hoaa032. PMC: 7394132. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa032. View

18.

Maheshwari A, Bell J, Bhide P, Brison D, Child T, Chong H . Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze). Hum Reprod. 2022; 37(3):476-487. PMC: 9206534. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab279. View

19.

Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera A, Kaser D, Ubaldi F . Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2016; 23(2):139-155. PMC: 5850862. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmw038. View

20.

Ishihara O, Jwa S, Kuwahara A, Ishikawa T, Kugu K, Sawa R . Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: A summary report for 2016 by the Ethics Committee of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Reprod Med Biol. 2019; 18(1):7-16. PMC: 6332769. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12258. View