nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

02.09.2020 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

A freeze-all strategy does not increase live birth rates in women of advanced reproductive age

verfasst von: K. Lattes, S. López, M. A. Checa, M. Brassesco, D. García, R. Vassena

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 10/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Research question

Does a freeze-all strategy improve live birth rates in women of different age groups?

Design

Retrospective cohort study of 1882 first embryo transfer cycles, performed between January 2013 and December 2015. Reproductive outcomes between fresh (FRESH) or frozen (FROZEN) embryo transfers were compared in patients stratified by age: < 35, between 35 and 38, or > 38 years. Student’s t test for independent samples and χ² analyses were used as needed. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for age, triggering drug, number of retrieved oocytes, number of transferred embryos, and percentage of top-quality embryos.

Main results and the role of chance

Live birth rates (LBR) were significantly higher for FROZEN in the < 35 years group (43.7% vs 24%; p < 0.001). In both the 35–38 and > 38 years groups, LBR for FROZEN vs FRESH were not statistically different (30.9% in the FROZEN group vs 29.3% in the FRESH group, p = 0.70, and 19.8% in the FROZEN group vs 12.7% in the FRESH group, p = 0.07, respectively). The multivariate analysis found a significantly positive effect of performing FROZEN on LBR in the younger group (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.31–4.62; p = 0.005) but had no impact in women between 35 and 38 years (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55–1.83; p = 0.98) or older (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43–2.13; p = 0.92).

Conclusions

Performing a freeze-all strategy seems to result in better reproductive outcomes when compared with a fresh ET in women under 35 years, with no significant impact on older women.

Edwards RG, Steptoe PC, Purdy JM. Establishing full-term human pregnancies using cleaving embryos grown in vitro. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1980;87(9):737–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1980.tb04610.x.CrossRefPubMed

Barnhart KT. Introduction: are we ready to eliminate the transfer of fresh embryos in in vitro fertilization? Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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(3):521–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(97)80080-5.CrossRefPubMed

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(5):1025–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03323-x.CrossRefPubMed

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(2):344–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.050.CrossRefPubMed

Check JH, Choe JK, Katsoff D, Summers-Chase D, Wilson C. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation adversely affects implantation following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16(8):416–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020565408018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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(3):195–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gah150.CrossRefPubMed

Horcajadas JA, Minguez P, Dopazo J, Esteban FJ, Dominguez F, Giudice LC, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation induces a functional genomic delay of the endometrium with potential clinical implications. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93(11):4500–10. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2008-0588.CrossRefPubMed

Simon C, Oberye J, Bellver J, Vidal C, Bosch E, Horcajadas JA, et al. Similar endometrial development in oocyte donors treated with either high- or standard-dose GnRH antagonist compared to treatment with a GnRH agonist or in natural cycles. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3318–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei243.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, Tondeur S, Reme T, Hedon B, et al. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(6):1436–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep039.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Bosdou JK, Tarlatzis BC. Progesterone elevation and probability of pregnancy after IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 60 000 cycles. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(5):433–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt014.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Bosdou JK, Lainas GT, Sfontouris IA, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Estimating the net effect of progesterone elevation on the day of hCG on live birth rates after IVF: a cohort analysis of 3296 IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):684–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu362.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Roque M. Freeze-all policy: is it time for that? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(2):171–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0391-0.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.027.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomized controlled study of human day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(9):1976–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den222.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Fasano G, Fontenelle N, Vannin AS, Biramane J, Devreker F, Englert Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(2):241–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0145-4.CrossRefPubMed

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(12):2794–801. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu246.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Feng G, Zhang B, Zhou H, Shu J, Gan X, Wu F, et al. Comparable clinical outcomes and live births after single vitrified-warmed and fresh blastocyst transfer. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25(5):466–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.07.008.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2593–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der251.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Shih W, Rushford DD, Bourne H, Garrett C, McBain JC, Healy DL, et al. Factors affecting low birthweight after assisted reproduction technology: difference between transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos suggests an adverse effect of oocyte collection. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(7):1644–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den150.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Healy DL, Breheny S, Halliday J, Jaques A, Rushford D, Garrett C, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for obstetric haemorrhage in 6730 singleton births after assisted reproductive technology in Victoria Australia. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(1):265–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep376.CrossRefPubMed

22.

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(1):110–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.009.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(1):35–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx031.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(2):368–77 e1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.019.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pelkonen S, Gissler M, Koivurova S, Lehtinen S, Martikainen H, Hartikainen AL, et al. Physical health of singleton children born after frozen embryo transfer using slow freezing: a 3-year follow-up study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(10):2411–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev203.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Pelkonen S, Hartikainen AL, Ritvanen A, Koivunen R, Martikainen H, Gissler M, et al. Major congenital anomalies in children born after frozen embryo transfer: a cohort study 1995-2006. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1552–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu088.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Doody KJ. Cryopreservation and delayed embryo transfer-assisted reproductive technology registry and reporting implications. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.04.048.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.04.018.CrossRefPubMed

29.

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011184.pub2.CrossRefPubMed

30.

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(2):126–36. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1705334.CrossRefPubMed

31.

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(2):137–47. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1703768.CrossRefPubMed

32.

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(10178):1310–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32843-5.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Basile N, Garcia-Velasco JA. The state of “freeze-for-all” in human ARTs. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(12):1543–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0799-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Lopez S, Lattes K, Vassena R, Brassesco M, Vernaeve V. Freeze-all in older women: benefit or loss? Hum Reprod. 2016;31:i5.

35.

Santistevan AHCK, Arredondo F, Miller B, Ory S, Leondires M. Multi-center study demonstrates freeze-all IVF protocols are correlated with higher ongoing pregnancy rates in women of advanced maternal age. Hum Reprod. 2016;3:1i102–3.

36.

Grunfeld L, Walker B, Bergh PA, Sandler B, Hofmann G, Navot D. High-resolution endovaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium: a noninvasive test for endometrial adequacy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(2):200–4.PubMed

37.

Alpha Scientists In Reproductive M. The Alpha consensus meeting on cryopreservation key performance indicators and benchmarks: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25(2):146–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.006.CrossRef

38.

Giorlandino C, Cignini P, Padula F, Giannarelli D, d’Emidio L, Aloisi A, et al. Effects of exogenous progesterone on fetal nuchal translucency: an observational prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(3):335 e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.003.CrossRef

39.

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(3):491–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey388.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Wang A, Santistevan A, Hunter Cohn K, Copperman A, Nulsen J, Miller BT, et al. Freeze-only versus fresh embryo transfer in a multicenter matched cohort study: contribution of progesterone and maternal age to success rates. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(2):254–61 e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.007.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2005–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev149.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):370–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev316.CrossRefPubMed

43.

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(1):2–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy033.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Zhang W, Xiao X, Zhang J, Wang W, Wu J, Peng L, et al. Clinical outcomes of frozen embryo versus fresh embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(2):259–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4786-5.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: A freeze-all strategy does not increase live birth rates in women of advanced reproductive age
verfasst von: K. Lattes
S. López
M. A. Checa
M. Brassesco
D. García
R. Vassena
Publikationsdatum: 02.09.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 10/2020
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01934-z

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

A freeze-all strategy does not increase live birth rates in women of advanced reproductive age

Abstract

Research question

Design

Main results and the role of chance

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hirsutismus bei PCOS: Laser- und Lichttherapien helfen

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Update Gynäkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Research question

Design

Main results and the role of chance

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2020

Evidence of metabolic activity during low-temperature ovarian tissue preservation in different media

Successful ovarian stimulation and pregnancy in an infertile woman with chronic myeloid leukemia

Discordance between human sperm quality and telomere length following differential gradient separation/swim-up

Novel variants in women with premature ovarian function decline identified via whole-exome sequencing

SARS-CoV-2 and the next generations: which impact on reproductive tissues?

Does coenzyme Q10 supplementation improve fertility outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hirsutismus bei PCOS: Laser- und Lichttherapien helfen

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Update Gynäkologie