To Transfer Fresh or Thawed Embryos?

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Worldwide freezing and thawing of embryos has been increasingly used since the first infant was born as a result of this technique in 1984. The use of frozen embryo replacement (FER) currently even exceeds the number of fresh cycles performed in some countries. This article discusses the pros and cons of FER versus fresh-embryo transfer with regard to both single-cycle and cumulative pregnancy and delivery rates. The review discusses the obvious advantages of FER: minimizing the proportion of pharmacological and surgical treatments, and lowering the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies, thereby increasing the safety for mother and child. Finally the article describes the accumulating literature on perinatal and long-term child outcome after transfer of frozen/thawed embryos, including a discussion on the concerns regarding cryo techniques and their possible roles in the subsequent development of fetus and child. Because larger and more detailed data sets are available for early cleavage-stage embryo freezing and slow freezing, they are the main focus of this review.

• References

• 1 Zeilmaker GH, Alberda AT, van Gent I, Rijkmans CM, Drogendijk AC. Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen-thawed embryos. Fertil Steril 1984; 42 (2) 293-296
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Chen C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet 1986; 1 (8486) 884-886
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Smith GD, Silva E Silva CA. Developmental consequences of cryopreservation of mammalian oocytes and embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9 (2) 171-178
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Varghese AC, Nagy ZP, Agarwal A. Current trends, biological foundations and future prospects of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19 (1) 126-140
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S , et al; European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium, for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (8) 1851-1862
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Centere for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health. Assisted Reproductive Technology. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2007/PDF/COMPLETE_2007_ART.pdf . Accessed April 6, 2012
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Dickey RP, Sartor BM, Pyrzak R. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? No single outcome measure is satisfactory when evaluating success in assisted reproduction; both twin births and singleton births should be counted as successes. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (4) 783-787
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Gleicher N, Oktay K, Barad DH. Patients are entitled to maximal IVF pregnancy rates. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18 (5) 599-602
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Gleicher N, Barad D. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (6) 2426-2431
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Min JK, Breheny SA, MacLachlan V, Healy DL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (1) 3-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Borini A, Cattoli M, Bulletti C, Coticchio G. Clinical efficiency of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008; 1127: 49-58
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Abdalla HI. Are US results for assisted reproduction better than the rest? Is it a question of competence or policies?. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21 (5) 624-630
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 ESHRE. The European IVF-monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1997: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 384-391
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Pinborg A, Loft A, Ziebe S, Nyboe Andersen A. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Is there a single 'parameter of excellence'?. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (5) 1052-1054
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Tiitinen A, Hydén-Granskog C, Gissler M. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The value of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy rates per single oocyte retrieval should not be forgotten. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (11) 2439-2441
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Lintsen AME, Braat DDM, Habbema JDF, Kremer JAM, Eijkemans MJC. Can differences in IVF success rates between centres be explained by patient characteristics and sample size?. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (1) 110-117
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Gnoth C, Maxrath B, Skonieczny T, Friol K, Godehardt E, Tigges J. Final ART success rates: a 10 years survey. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (8) 2239-2246
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Pinborg A, Hougaard CO, Nyboe Andersen A, Molbo D, Schmidt L. Prospective longitudinal cohort study on cumulative 5-year delivery and adoption rates among 1338 couples initiating an ART program (Copenhagen Multicentre Psychosocial Infertility Research Programme (COMPI)). Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 991-999
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Moragianni VA, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after assisted reproductive technology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 22 (3) 189-192
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T , et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004; 351 (23) 2392-2402
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Thurin-Kjellberg A, Olivius C, Bergh C. Cumulative live-birth rates in a trial of single-embryo or double-embryo transfer. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (18) 1812-1813
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (3) 936-945
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Wennerholm UB, Söderström-Anttila V, Bergh C , et al. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data [review]. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (9) 2158-2172 Review
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Pinborg A, Loft A, Henningsen AA, Rasmussen S, Nyboe Andersen A. Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement (FER) from 1995–2006—Danish National Cohort Study. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 1320-1327
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Pelkonen S, Koivunen R, Gissler M , et al. Perinatal outcome of children born after frozen and fresh embryo transfer: the Finnish cohort study 1995–2006. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (4) 914-923
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Källén B, Finnström O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (3) 611-617
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Shih W, Rushford DD, Bourne H , 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) 1644-1653
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Belva F, Henriet S, Van den Abbeel E , et al. Neonatal outcome of 937 children born after transfer of cryopreserved embryos obtained by ICSI and IVF and comparison with outcome data of fresh ICSI and IVF cycles. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (10) 2227-2238
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18 (6) 769-776
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Wennerholm UB, Albertsson-Wikland K, Bergh C , et al. Postnatal growth and health in children born after cryopreservation as embryos. Lancet 1998; 351 (9109) 1085-1090
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Olivennes F, Fanchin R, Lédée N, Righini C, Kadoch IJ, Frydman R. Perinatal outcome and developmental studies on children born after IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8 (2) 117-128
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Pinborg A, Loft A, Noergaard L, Henningsen AA, Rasmussen S, Nyboe Andersen A. Singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET) have an increased risk of being large of gestational age—Danish National controlled cohort study of 15078 singletons. [abstract]. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (Suppl. 01) O-230
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Henningsen AK, Pinborg A, Lidegaard O, Vestergaard CF, Forman JL, Andersen AN. Perinatal outcome of singleton siblings born after assisted reproductive technology and spontaneous conception: Danish national sibling-cohort study. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (3) 959-963
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Young LE, Sinclair KD, Wilmut I. Large offspring syndrome in cattle and sheep. Rev Reprod 1998; 3 (3) 155-163
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Grace KS, Sinclair KD. Assisted reproductive technology, epigenetics, and long-term health: a developmental time bomb still ticking. Semin Reprod Med 2009; 27 (5) 409-416
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Ceelen M, van Weissenbruch MM, Vermeiden JP, van Leeuwen FE, Delemarre-van de Waal HA. Cardiometabolic differences in children born after in vitro fertilization: follow-up study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93 (5) 1682-1688
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Bergh T, Ericson A, Hillensjö T, Nygren KG, Wennerholm UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999; 354 (9190) 1579-1585
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Gerris J, De Neubourg D, De Sutter P, Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M. Cryopreservation as a tool to reduce multiple birth. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7 (3) 286-294
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Pinborg A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11 (6) 575-593
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Wada I, Macnamee MC, Wick K, Bradfield JM, Brinsden PR. Birth characteristics and perinatal outcome of babies conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod 1994; 9 (3) 543-546
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Humaidan P, Quartarolo J, Papanikolaou EG. Preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: guidance for the clinician. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (2) 389-400
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar