Download fulltext HTML
Kieu, V., Polyakov, A., Rozen, G., Lantsberg, D., Stern, C., & Teh, W. T. (2023). Live birth rates in day 5 fresh versus vitrified single blastocyst transfer cycles: A cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine (IJRM), 21(3), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v21i3.13200

https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v21i3.13200

statistics

  • 105 Abstract Views
  • 89 PDF Views
  • 0 HTML Views

authors

  • Violet Kieu

    Violet Kieu

    Reproductive Services Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  • Alex Polyakov

    Alex Polyakov

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  • Genia Rozen

    Genia Rozen

    Reproductive Services Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  • Daniel Lantsberg

    Daniel Lantsberg

    Reproductive Services Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  • Catharyn Stern

    Catharyn Stern

    Reproductive Services Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  • Wan Tinn Teh

    Wan Tinn Teh

    Reproductive Services Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Published Date

  • Apr 11, 2023

Live birth rates in day 5 fresh versus vitrified single blastocyst transfer cycles: A cross-sectional analysis

International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine (IJRM) / International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine (IJRM): Volume 21, Issue No. 3 / Pages 245–254

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.


Key words: Blastocyst, Live birth, In vitro techniques, Pregnancy rate, Vitrification, Reproduction.

References
[1] Newman JE, Paul RC, Chambers GM. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2019. Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2021.

[2] Harris K, Fitzgerald O, Paul RC, Macaldowie A, Lee E, Chambers GM. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2014. Sydney: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, the University of New South Wales; 2016.

[3] Wyns C, Bergh C, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, Motrenko T, et al. ART in Europe, 2016: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020: hoaa032.

[4] CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. Atlanta (GA): US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2018.

[5] Ishihara O, Jwa SC, Kuwahara A, Ishikawa T, Kugu K, Sawa R, et al. 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 2018; 18: 7–16.

[6] Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: Systematic review and metaanalysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23: 139–155.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[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.

[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.

[11] Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Bosdou JK, Lainas GT, Sfontouris IA, Tarlatzis BC, et al. 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: 1859–1865.

[12] 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.

[13] Bosdou JK, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC, Grimbizis GF, Kolibianakis EM. 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: 491–505.

[14] Stormlund S, Sopa N, Zedeler A, Bogstad J, Praetorius 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.

[15] 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: 1310–1318.

[16] 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.

[17] Teh WT, Polyakov A, Garrett C, Edgar D, Mcbain J, Rogers PAW. Reduced live birth rates in frozen versus fresh single cleavage stage embryo transfer cycles: A cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod BioMed 2020; 18: 491–500.

[18] Smith ADAC, Tilling K, Lawlor DA, Nelson SM. 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: 202.

[19] Maheshwari A, Bell JL, Bhide P, Brison D, Child T, Chong HY, et al. Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: A multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze). Hum Reprod 2022; 37: 476–487.

[20] 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.

[21] Glujovsky D, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Ciapponi A, Cornelisse S, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 5: CD002118.

[22] Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D. Toward reproductive certainty: Fertility and genetics beyond. UK: Parthenon Publishing; 1999: 378–388.

[23] Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: Towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1155–1158.

[24] World Health Organization. ICD-10: International statistical classification of diseases and related health problem: 10th version. 2nd Ed. Switzerland: World Health Organization Press; 2004.

[25] Gat I, Shlush E, Quach K, Librach CL. The continuum of high ovarian response: A rational approach to the management of high responder patient subgroups. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2015; 61: 336–344.

[26] 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.

[27] Pakes C, Volovsky M, Rozen G, Agresta F, Gardner DK, Polyakov A. Comparing pregnancy outcomes between natural cycles and artificial cycles following frozen-thaw embryo transfers. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2020; 60: 804–809.