• Users Online: 73
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 7-12

Elective frozen embryo transfer – What is the evidence?


Dr. Patil's Fertility and Endoscopy Clinic, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission25-Dec-2020
Date of Acceptance26-Dec-2020
Date of Web Publication30-Jan-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Madhuri Patil
Dr. Patil's Fertility and Endoscopy Clinic, Bengaluru, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tofj.tofj_8_20

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Fresh embryo transfer (ET) has been the norm in Assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. However, there has been a concern about decreased implantation and pregnancy rates due to altered endometrial receptivity, resulting from the supra-physiological hormonal levels associated with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). Improvement in embryo survival rates with vitrification has led to an increase in the use of elective freezing of all good quality embryos and transfer in subsequent cycles, i.e., elective frozen ET (eFET). The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger and segmental in vitro fertilization (IVF) to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in hyper responders, has further enhanced the use of e FET. Significantly higher pregnancy rates after frozen-thawed ET in some reports have encouraged wider use of elective freeze-all cycles in ART. Recent studies have shown that in patients with regular menstrual cycles, a freeze-all strategy with GnRH agonist triggering did not result in higher on-going pregnancy rates and live birth rates (LBRs) as compared to fresh transfers with the use of human chorionic gonadotropin for the trigger. There have been no studies comparing fresh verses eFET in poor responders. Significant benefit of e FET has been documented only in hyperresponders. Despite the potential advantages, it seems that e FET is not designed for all IVF patients and a careful patient selection is advocated to derive true benefit from this strategy.

Keywords: Cryopreservation, cumulative pregnancy rate, elective frozen-thawed embryo transfer, freeze-all, fresh transfer, in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection/live birth/ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, live birth rate, obstetric outcomes, perinatal outcomes, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy


How to cite this article:
Patil M. Elective frozen embryo transfer – What is the evidence?. Onco Fertil J 2020;3:7-12

How to cite this URL:
Patil M. Elective frozen embryo transfer – What is the evidence?. Onco Fertil J [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 May 10];3:7-12. Available from: https://www.tofjonline.org/text.asp?2020/3/1/7/308409




  Introduction Top


The first live birth after in vitro fertilization (IVF) was reported in 1978 after a fresh embryo transfer (ET),[1] whereas the first live birth after frozen ET (FET) was reported in 1984.[2] Improvement in embryo survival and implantation potential using the vitrification technique for embryo freezing, encouraged the use of FETs in assisted reproduction technology (ART). Embryo cryopreservation is a valuable tool that aids in enhancing ART results by increasing the cumulative conception rate and decreasing the multiple pregnancy rate, through the use of single ET.

In recent years, the use of elective freezing of all embryos with a subsequent FET has become very popular, due to the improved pregnancy rates and safety profile reported. Elective FET (eFET) is advocated in patients with an increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), progesterone elevation (PE) on the day of ovulation trigger, fertility preservation for cancer patients or women wanting to postpone pregnancy. Elective FET is also used in personalized Et, which is based on endometrial receptivity array profile in women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and when preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is used as an embryo selection technique.


  Search Methods Top


An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline and EMBASE to identify all relevant RCTs published from 2010 to 2020 using search terms-Freeze-all, elective frozen-thawed ET, fresh transfer, cryopreservation, live birth rate (LBR), cumulative pregnancy rate,/IVF/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)/live birth/OHSS, obstetric outcomes, perinatal outcomes, PGT-A. A total of 74 articles were retrieved. Appropriate cross-references were then manually searched.


  The Rationale of Freeze-All Cycles Top


Implantation is a complex process during which the blastocyst becomes intimately connected with the maternal endometrium/decidua. Successful implantation requires a competent embryo at the blastocyst stage, a receptive endometrium, and synchronized dialogue between maternal and embryonic tissues. It is at this stage that an independently developing preimplantation blastocyst becomes dependent on the maternal environment for its continual development. Over the past 40 years of ART treatment and research, major progress has been made in improving stimulation protocols, fertilization procedures, optimizing embryo culture conditions, and preventing premature luteinization, however only a marginal improvement has been achieved in the implantation and pregnancy rates.

Disturbance in embryo–maternal dialog is one of the major reasons (60%) for pregnancy termination at the end of the peri-implantation period. This may be related to the high estradiol levels during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), that result in the advancement of endometrial maturity.[3] Several studies have reported a negative effect of COS on endometrial receptivity due to an increase in steroid levels[4],[5],[6] and no pregnancies were achieved when the endometrial advancement was over 3 days, especially when progesterone levels were ≥1.1 ng/mL on the day of ovulation trigger.[3] This is related to the negative impact of high late follicular progesterone levels on endometrial receptivity and implantation.[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] Moreover, an increase in uterine contractility encountered in stimulated cycles may contribute to implantation failure or may increase the risk of an ectopic pregnancy.[12],[13]

Horcajadas et al. found that there were over 200 genes related to implantation that were over or under-expressed during COS, when compared to a natural cycle.[5] These changes in the gene expression may be associated with the supra-physiologic hormonal levels observed during COS. The gene expressions were different in patients depending on the progesterone (P4) level on the day of trigger (P4 less or more than 1.1 ng/ml).[6] Those patients who did not achieve pregnancy had endometrial advancement of >3 days with an abnormal histological profile assessed by Noyes' criteria and the gene expression profile.[14] A FET performed in a natural cycle or hormone replacement cycle (HRT) replaces embryos in a more physiological environment, thereby improving implantation potential. This rationale has made many clinics shift to a “freeze for all” policy to achieve a better IVF outcome. However, the evidence supporting a freeze-all strategy in all patients is patchy and controversial. Moreover, there is some evidence for lower risk of low-birth-weight,[15],[16],[17] preterm birth[15],[18],[19],[20],[21] small for gestational age babies[15],[17],[22] after FET when compared to fresh ET.


  Effectiveness of Freeze-All Cycles Top


Most trials and a major meta-analysis conducted have found outcome benefit with an increase in the on-going pregnancy rate only in high responders.[23] Results of FET may vary based on embryo quality, morphology at freezing and post-thaw, cryopreservation procedure which could potentially impair preimplantation development resulting in reduced cell numbers at the blastocyst stage and reduced survival rates after cryopreservation.[24] One also needs to take into consideration the patient dynamics such as age and ovarian reserve and expected ovarian response.

No difference in the LBR between eFET in preference to fresh ET at blastocyst stage with the exclusion of PGT-A cycles has been reported.[25] There was also no significant difference in the cumulative LBR observed between the eFET and fresh ET groups in the overall IVF/ICSI population.[25] The grade and quality of evidence for the above observation were low, due to inter-study heterogeneity.[25] After subgroup analyses superiority of eFET in respect to LBR was seen only in hyper-responders, in whom intramuscular (IM) progesterone was used for luteal phase support (LPS) in FET cycles and in those couples who had undergone PGT-A.[25] This superiority was not evident in normo-responders and even in hyper-responders in whom oral or vaginal progesterone was used for LPS in FET cycles.[25] The reason for the difference in the LBR observed favoring eFET only with IM progesterone administration for LPS could probably be due to insufficient circulating serum progesterone levels achieved with vaginal or oral progesterone only.[26] However, there was one trial which found benefit in normally ovulating subjects.[27] The Chinese trial recently published in 2019 concluded that deferred frozen single blastocyst transfer in normally ovulating women resulted in significantly higher rates of singleton live birth than fresh transfers (50.4% vs. 39.9%).[27] Existing studies for freeze all strategy have not compared a freeze-all strategy using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger with a fresh transfer strategy using human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger.

When comparing eFET with fresh ET, time to pregnancy (TTP) also needs to be taken into account when evaluating efficacy.[28] An RCT by Vuong et al., assessed the TTP in a post hoc analysis of clinical outcomes after 12 months and found that there was an increase in the median TTP in patients undergoing eFET as compared to fresh ET (absolute difference, 1.4 months; 95% confidence interval: 0.95–1.84; P < 0.001).[29] However, a recent multicentric randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared a freeze-all strategy with GnRH agonist trigger and a fresh transfer strategy with hCG trigger did not show a higher ongoing pregnancy and LBR in normally menstruating women. A longer TTP was also reported in the freeze-all group.[30] Therefore, fresh ET strategy should be used in women with regular menstrual cycles and freeze all strategies should be reserved for women exhibiting a hyper-response. Two more trials published earlier also did not report any advantage of freeze-all over fresh ET in ovulatory patients. The benefit of freeze all was seen only in women with PCOS[29],[31] and high responders.[25]

The Cochrane review and meta-analysis published in 2017 found limited gain with freeze all strategy in high responders, otherwise freeze-all was associated with lower LBRs than fresh ETs.[32] There are a few observational studies but no RCTs comparing fresh ET and eFET in poor ovarian responders. These observational studies have contradictory evidence, with most studies showing no benefit on on-going pregnancy rates and LBR,[33],[34],[35] while one study did show increased implantation and pregnancy rates with eFET in poor responders.[36]

Elective FET is also more effective than fresh ET in patients undergoing PGT-A with trophectoderm biopsy on day 5 after oocyte retrieval.[37] The poor outcome of fresh ET cycle may be related to embryo–endometrial asynchrony as the trophectoderm biopsy is performed on day 5 and ET is done on day 6.[38],[39]

No difference was seen in the incidence of ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies, between patients undergoing fresh ET and eFET.[25] Stormlund et al. reported an increased risk of preterm birth with fresh single blastocyst transfer.[30] However, there were no differences seen in any other complication of the pregnancy in the obstetric, and perinatal outcome analysis.[30] The secondary outcome analyzed in this study was the incidence of OHSS. None of the patients except one had moderate or severe OHSS in the fresh ET group.[30] A multicentric RCT in women with polycystic ovary syndrome observed a trend toward higher neonatal death after FET compared with fresh embryo replacement.[31]

Apart from the clinical outcome there could be damage to the embryo due to low temperature, cryoprotectant used and freezing process per se which are depicted in [Table 1].
Table 1: Effects of embryo cryopreservation

Click here to view


The results after transfer of cryopreserved embryos can be affected by biological consequences post-thaw of embryo cryopreservation, which include cell loss, arrested/compromised development, altered function/metabolism in the blastomeres and absent further cleavage and blastocyst formation.[40] In a cleavage cell embryo after cryopreservation, there could be decrease in implantation rate with decreased survival of the blastomeres and absence of resumption of mitosis.[40] ET after post-thaw extended culture from for cleavage sage embryos to blastocyst does not eliminate effects of cryo-damage though it reduces the transfer of the damaged and nonviable embryo.[41] Moreover, immediate post-thaw survival is not the only criteria for implantation as in a study by Yamanaka et al. it was observed that 36% of embryos degenerated, 18% got arrested and only 46% resumed development.[42]

The positive predictors of implantation after thawing of blastocyst include re-expansion, hatching, and the absence of extensive cytoplasmic granulation and large necrotic areas. The negative predictors of implantation post-thaw include cytoplasmic granulation, halo-like structure in the periphery of the cells, extensive exclusion of fragments, and presence of large necrotic foci, which are more than half of the inner cell mass.[43] We also need to take into consideration the loss of gametes due to the freezing method used, problem during storage which may result from low liquid nitrogen levels or scarcity of supply, equipment failure, problem with labeling or breach of packaging which may result in contamination.


  Safety of Freeze-All Cycles Top


It was Devroey and Bourgain in Brussels who first promoted the idea of freeze all strategy to eliminate the risk of OHSS in IVF.[44] They concluded that the use of an GnRH agonist trigger in an antagonist cycle eliminates the risk of OHSS.[45] However, fresh ET in agonist triggered cycles are still at risk of late-onset OHSS and compromised PRs.[45] An elective FET in such cases improves IVF outcome with decreased incidence of iatrogenic and potentially lethal OHSS.[44],[45] OHSS rate in a freeze all cycle was between 1% and 3% as compared to 7% in a conventional fresh ET cycle.[32]

One needs to understand that the improved PR's and reduced miscarriages in eFET may come at the cost of increased pregnancy complications.[32] A new cohort study suggests a three-times higher risk of preeclampsia from FET cycles programmed with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) as compared to natural cycles.[46] A possible explanation for this increased risk of preeclampsia relates to endometrial priming with estrogens performed during hormone replacement FET cycles. There is also some evidence for a higher incidence of large for gestational age babies,[21],[22],[30] and higher risk of placenta accreta[15],[47] associated with FET cycles. An association with low pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A levels in eFET cycles has also been reported.[48] The increased risk of hypertensive disorders and macrosomia after eFET in HRT cycles has been related to the absence of a corpus luteum, which plays an important part in maternal cardiovascular adaptation during pregnancy.[49],[50]

Cryopreservation can also result in epigenetic disturbances, imprinting disorders, and altered methylation of genes involved in growth and metabolism that might affect the developmental programming of fetal and placental tissue.[51] It can also affect the integrity of genome.[52] This is caused by increase in reactive oxygen species, use of cryoprotectants, low temperature, incorporation of calcium and zinc molecules in the DNA-protamine complex and intracellular crystallization.[52]


  Safety of Cryopreservation Technique Top


Miles et al. found that children born after IVF using frozen embryos are taller and with higher insulin growth factors 1 and 2 (IGF1 and IGF2) levels.[53] Even though vitrification seems to be the promising trend for successful clinical outcomes, there are still some concerns that need to be addressed. Long-term storage effects and long-term validation data on children born are needed as high concentrations of cryoprotectants have to be used for vitrification. Majority of the articles published on the clinical efficiency of vitrification for human cells utilized open carriers. Hence, liquid nitrogen still remains to be potential source of contamination since the technique is based on direct contact between the vitrification solution containing cryoprotectant agents and liquid nitrogen.[54] Therefore, from the clinical point of view closed system should be used to avoid contamination, especially based on the new regulations.[55] Only one study has verified the clinical efficacy of a noncommercial, aseptic closed vitrification system called microSecure for human embryos.[56] It is a low-cost, non-commercial, aseptic, closed system that offers technical simplicity and is reliable with excellent embryo survival and sustained viability.[56] More RCTs are required to show similar efficiency of closed systems and open carriers for cryopreservation. Probably, in future storage of cells in the vapor phase of nitrogen instead of liquid nitrogen can be an option. The other option to prevent contamination is to sterilize the liquid nitrogen.[57]


  Cost-Effectiveness Top


There are not many studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the freeze-all policy. However, freeze-all strategy results in increased cost due to freezing, maintenance of frozen embryos, FET cycle and increased time to pregnancy. Probably freeze-all when compared to fresh ET was more cost-effective in women at a higher risk of OHSS.


  Conclusion Top


The emerging trend of freeze-all is being widely used over the last couple of years as it is considered safe especially in women with increased risk of OHSS and for better embryo endometrial synchrony. Excellent postthaw survival of the embryos has made the freeze all policy a reality. Freeze-all policy has also lead to improved IVF outcome in selected group of patients. However, currently, there is no clinical data that supports the indiscriminate use of freeze-all policy in all patients to increase the implantation rate and LBR. Freeze all strategy may be beneficial in patients at risk of OHSS, in hyper-responders, and in those undergoing PGT-A at the blastocyst stage. The time taken to achieve a pregnancy is also increased with elective FET. The other potential disadvantages of freeze all include degeneration or loss of embryos during the freezing and thawing processes, the added financial costs, increase in the workload of the embryology laboratory, the emotional costs of deferring transfer, increased risks of having a large for gestational age baby and maternal hypertensive disorders. Therefore, the elective FET policy should be individualized depending on the patient profile. There is also not much data available on the long-term effects of freezing on the babies born after elective FET compared to fresh ET. This mandates more studies on eFET to report on follow-up data on the outcome of neonates and children. Thus a fresh ET should be a policy adopted in lieu of elective FET if no apparent treatment advantage or immediate risk of OHSS is present. Rationale to freeze all embryos is compelling but not proven, therefore time, and hopefully, high-quality research with large RCTs, need to establish if we are ready to eliminate the transfer of ''fresh'' embryos in IVF.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978;312:366.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
First baby born of frozen embryo. N Y Times Web 1984;A16.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
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;78:1025-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bourgain C, Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:515-22.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Horcajadas JA, Riesewijk A, Polman J, van Os R, Pellicer A, Mosselman S, et al. Effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF on endometrial gene expression profiles. Mol Hum Reprod 2005;11:195-205.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Labarta E, Martínez-Conejero JA, Alamá P, Horcajadas JA, Pellicer A, Simón C, et al. 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;26:1813-25.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Fatemi HM, Van Vaerenbergh I. Significance of premature progesterone rise in IVF. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015;27:242-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Bosch E, Labarta E, Kolibianakis E, Rosen M, Meldrum D. Regimen of ovarian stimulation affects oocyte and therefore embryo quality. Fertil Steril 2016;105:560-70.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Lawrenz B, Fatemi HM. Effect of progesterone elevation in follicular phase of IVF-cycles on the endometrial receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;34:422-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Lawrenz B, Labarta E, Fatemi H, Bosch E. Premature progesterone elevation: Targets and rescue strategies. Fertil Steril 2018;109:577-82.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Lawrenz B, Melado L, Fatemi H. Premature progesterone rise in ART-cycles. Reprod Biol 2018;18:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Huang B, Hu D, Qian K, Ai J, Li Y, Jin L, et al. Is frozen embryo transfer cycle associated with a significantly lower incidence of ectopic pregnancy? An analysis of more than 30,000 cycles. Fertil Steril 2014;102:1345-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Londra L, Moreau C, Strobino D, Garcia J, Zacur H, Zhao Y. Ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: Differences between fresh and frozen-thawed cycles. Fertil Steril 2015;104:110-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
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;24:1085-91.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson GD. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: An analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril 2014;101:128-33.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Pinborg A, Loft A, Aaris Henningsen AK, Rasmussen S, Andersen AN. Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: The danish national cohort study. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1320-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Li Z, Wang YA, Ledger W, Edgar DH, Sullivan EA. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: A population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod 2014;29:2794-801.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Pelkonen S, Koivunen R, Gissler M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Suikkari AM, Hydén-Granskog C, et al. Perinatal outcome of children born after frozen and fresh embryo transfer: The Finnish cohort study. Hum Reprod 2010;25:914-23.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Söderström-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:87-104.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Schwarze JE, Crosby JA, Zegers-Hochschild F. Effect of embryo freezing on perinatal outcome after assisted reproduction techniques: Lessons from the Latin American registry of assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;31:39-43.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Wennerholm UB, Henningsen AK, Romundstad LB, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Skjaerven R, et al. Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2545-53.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Pinborg A, Henningsen AA, Loft A, Malchau SS, Forman J, Andersen AN. Large Baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): Is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique? Hum Reprod 2014;29:618-27.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013;99:156-62.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. 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 2017;23:139-55.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Roque M, Haahr T, Geber S, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 2019;25:2-14.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Labarta E, Mariani G, Holtmann N, Celada P, Remohí J, Bosch E. Low serum pro- gesterone on the day of embryo transfer is associated with a diminished ongoing pregnancy rate in oocyte donation cycles after artificial endometrial preparation: A prospective study. Hum Reprod 2017;32:2437-42.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Wei D, Liu JY, Sun Y, Shi Y, Zhang B, Liu JQ, et al. Frozen versus fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulatory women: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019;393:1310-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: Time for a consensus? Hum Reprod 2015;30:2703-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
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;378:137-47.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Stormlund S, Sopa N, Zedeler A, Bogstad J, Prætorius L, Nielsen HS, et al. 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.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
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;375:523-33.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Wong KM, van Wely M, Mol F, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;3:CD011184.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Roque M, Valle M, Sampaio M, Geber S. Does freeze-all policy affect IVF outcomes in poor responders? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52:530-4.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Çelik S, Turgut N, Yagmur E, Boynukalin K, Çelik DC, Findikli N, et al. The effects of fresh embryo transfers and elective frozen-thawed embryo transfers on pregnancy outcomes in poor ovarian responders as defined by the Bologna criteria. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2015;12:132-8.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Xue Y, Tong X, Zhu H, Li K, Zhang S. Freeze-all embryo strategy in poor ovarian responders undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Endocrinol 2018;34:680-3.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Berkkanoglu M, Coetzee K, Bulut H, Ozgur K. Optimal embryo transfer strategy in poor response may include freeze-all. J Assist Reprod Genet 2017;34:79-87.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: A rando- mized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2017;107:723-30.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Poulsen V, Ingerslev HJ, Kirkegaard K. Elective embryo transfers on Day 6 reduce implantation compared with transfers on Day 5. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1238-43.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Shapiro BS, Garner FC. Recurrent implantation failure is another indication for the freeze-all strategy. Fertil Steril 2017;108:44.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Edgar DH, Archer J, McBain J, Bourne H. Embryonic factors affecting outcome from single cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:718-23.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Archer J, Gook DA, Edgar DH. Blastocyst formation and cell numbers in human frozen-thawed embryos following extended culture. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1669-73.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Yamanaka M, Hashimoto S, Amo A, Ito-Sasaki T, Abe H, Morimoto Y. Developmental assessment of human vitrified-warmed blastocysts based on oxygen consumption. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3366-71.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Ebner T, Vanderzwalmen P, Shebl O, Urdl W, Moser M, Zech NH, et al. Morphology of vitrified/warmed day-5 embryos predicts rates of implantation, pregnancy and live birth. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:72-8.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2593-7.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Kol S, Humaidan P. GnRH agonist triggering: Recent developments. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;26:226-30.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Coutifaris C. Elective frozen embryo transfer for all? Lancet 2019;393:1264-5.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Kaser DJ, Melamed A, Bormann CL, Myers DE, Missmer SA, Walsh BW, et al. Cryopreserved embryo transfer is an independent risk factor for placenta accreta. Fertil Steril 2015;103:1176-8400.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Amor DJ, Xu JX, Halliday JL, Francis I, Healy DL, Breheny S, et al. Pregnancies conceived using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have low levels of pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) leading to a high rate of false-positive results in first trimester screening for Down syndrome. Hum Reprod 2009;24:1330-8.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Ginström Ernstad E, Wennerholm UB, Khatibi A, Petzold M, Bergh C. Neonatal and maternal outcome after frozen embryo transfer: Increased risks in programmed cycles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;221:126.e1-18.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
von Versen-Höynck F, Schaub AM, Chi YY, Chiu KH, Liu J, Lingis M, et al. Increased preeclampsia risk and reduced aortic compliance with in vitro fertilization cycles in the absence of a corpus luteum. Hypertension 2019;73:640-9.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Miranda TB, Jones PA. DNA methylation: The nuts and bolts of repression. J Cell Physiol 2007;213:384-90.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Kopeika J, Thornhill A, Khalaf Y. The effect of cryopreservation on the genome of gametes and embryos: Principles of cryobiology and critical appraisal of the evidence. Hum Reprod Update 2015;21:209-27.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Miles HL, Hofman PL, Peek J, Harris M, Wilson D, Robinson EM, et al. In vitro fertilization improves childhood growth and metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:3441-5.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Ieda S, Kato O. Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:608-14.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Vajta G, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. Open versus closed systems for vitrification of human oocytes and embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:325-33.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Schiewe MC, Zozula S, Anderson RE, Fahy GM. Validation of microSecure vitrification (μS-VTF) for the effective cryopreservation of human embryos and oocytes. Cryobiology 2015;71:264-72.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Parmegiani L, Accorsi A, Cognigni GE, Bernardi S, Troilo E, Filicori M. Sterilization of liquid nitrogen with ultraviolet irradiation for safe vitrification of human oocytes or embryos. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1525-8.  Back to cited text no. 57
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Search Methods
The Rationale of...
Effectiveness of...
Safety of Freeze...
Safety of Cryopr...
Cost-Effectiveness
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed627    
    Printed34    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded56    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal