Pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37800/RM.3.2023.12-19Keywords:
frozen embryo, assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy outcomes, infertility, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, health status of childrenAbstract
Relevance: Pregnancy following frozen embryo transfer (FET) is becoming an increasingly common procedure in reproductive medicine. However, optimal strategies and factors influencing pregnancy outcomes remain a research subject.
The study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of pregnancy outcomes following frozen embryo transfer to determine significant factors, optimal protocols, and strategies.
Materials and methods: The analysis of modern studies and publications over the past decade related to FET, as well as the influence of biological, medical, environmental, and lifestyle factors on pregnancy outcomes.
Results: Comparing pregnancy outcomes following FET with the alternative of fresh embryos in some cases showed better results. Implantation success, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancy, and child and maternal indicators demonstrated some superiority of frozen embryos. Environmental and lifestyle factors such as smoking, overweight, stress, and alcohol consumption also significantly influence pregnancy outcomes after FET.
Conclusion: A literature review shows that different protocols and strategies can optimize pregnancy outcomes for each patient. Furthermore, maintaining a healthy lifestyle and managing stress can significantly improve pregnancy outcomes after FET. Future research may help identify optimal protocols and strategies for different patient groups and uncover additional factors influencing pregnancy outcomes.
References
Inhorn M.C., Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century // Hum. Reprod. Upd. – 2015. – Vol. 21 (4). – P. 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv016
Roque M., Valle M., Guimarães F., Sampaio M., Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer // Fertil. Steril. – 2015. – Vol. 103 (5). – P. 1190-1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.045
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. – Vol. 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011184.pub3
Glujovsky D., Retamar A.M., Sedo C.R., Ciapponi A., Cornelisse S., Blake D. Cleavage‐stage versus blastocyst‐stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology // Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. – 2022. – Vol. 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6
Sharma R., Biedenharn K.R., Fedor J.M., Agarwal A. (2013). Lifestyle factors and reproductive health: taking control of your fertility // Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. – 2013. – Vol. 11 (1). – P 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-66
Rooney K.L., Domar A.D. (2018). The relationship between stress and infertility // Dialog. Clin. Neurosci. – 2018. – Vol. 20 (1). – P. 41-47. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2018.20.1/adomar
Roque M., Lattes K., Serra S., Sola I., Psych B., Geber S., Carreras R., Checa M.A. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Fertil. Steril. – 2013. – Vol. 99 (1). – P. 156-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.003
Chen Z.J., Shi Y., Sun Y., Zhang B., Liang X., Cao Y. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2016. – Vol. 375. – P. 523-533. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1513873
Acharya K.S., Acharya C.R., Bishop K., Harris B., Raburn D., Muasher S.J. Freezing of all embryos in in vitro fertilization is beneficial in high responders, but not intermediate and low responders: an analysis of 82,935 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry // Fertil. Steril. – 2018. – Vol. 110 (5). – P. 880–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.024
Li X., Kodithuwakku S.P., Chan R.W.S., Yeung W.S.B., Yao Y., Ng E.H.Y., Chiu P.C.N., Lee C.-L. Three-dimensional culture models of human endometrium for studying trophoblast-endometrium interaction during implantation // Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. – 2022.– Vol. 20 (1). – P. 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00973-8
Evans J., Salamonsen L.A., Winship A.L., Menkhorst E., Nie G., Gargett C.E., Horne A.W. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence // Hum. Reprod. Upd. – 2014. – Vol. 20 (6). – P. 808-821. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu027
Venetis C.A. Pro: Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer. Is frozen embryo transfer the future? // Hum. Reprod. – 2022. – Vol. 37 (7). – P. 1379-1387. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac126
Zhang J., Liu H., Mao X., Chen Q., Fan Y. (2019). Neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in children born after human menopausal gonadotropin and medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment cycles // Arch. Gynecol. Obstet.. – 2019. – Vol. 300 (3). – P. 663-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05234-6
Acharya K.S., Acharya C.R., Bishop K. Freezing of all embryos in in vitro fertilization is beneficial in high responders, but not intermediate and low responders: an analysis of 82,935 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry // Fertil. Steril. – 2018. – Vol. 110 (5). – P. 880-887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.024
Weinerman R., Mainigi M. Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale // Fertil. Steril. – 2014. – Vol. 102 (1). – P. 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.019
Qin J., Sheng X., Wang H. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies // Fertil. Steril. – 2016. – Vol. 105 (1). – P. 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007
Li Z., Wang A.Y., Bowman M. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study // Hum. Reprod. – 2014. – Vol. 29 (12). – P. 2794-2801. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu246
Blencowe H., Cousens S., Oestergaard M.Z., Chou D., Moller A.B., Narwal R., Adler A., Garcia C.V., Rohde S., Say L., Lawn J.E. (2013). National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications // Lancet. – 2013. – Vol. 379 (9832). – P. 2162-2172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4
Maheshwari A., Pandey S., Shetty A. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta- analysis provide a definitive answer? // Hum. Reprod. Upd. – 2018. – Vol. 24 (1) – P. 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx031
Zhu Q., Chen Q., Wang L. Live birth rates in the first complete IVF cycle among 20 687 women using a freeze-all strategy // Hum. Reprod. – 2018. – Vol. 33 (5). – P. 924-929. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey044
McLernon D.J., Harrild K., Bergh C., Davies M.J., de Neubourg D., Dumoulin J.C., Gerris J., Kremer J.A., Martikainen H., Mol B.W., Norman R.J., Thurin-Kjellberg A., Tiitinen A., van Montfoort A.P., van Peperstraten A.M., Van Royen E., Bhattacharya S. (2014). Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials // BMJ. – 2014. – Vol. 349. – g6050. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6050
Opdahl S., Henningsen A.A., Tiitinen A., Bergh C., Pinborg A., Romundstad P.R., Wennerholm U.B., Gissler M., Skjærven R., Romundstad L.B. Risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology: a cohort study from the CoNARTaS group // Hum. Reprod. – 2015. – Vol. 30 (7). – P. 1724-1731. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev090
Wennerholm U.-B., Henningsen A.-K.A., Romundstad L.B., Bergh C., Pinborg A., Skjaerven R., Forman J., Gissler M., Nygren K.G., Tiitinen A. Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group // Hum. Reprod. – 2013.– Vol. 28 (9). – P. 2545-2553. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det272
Pinborg A., Henningsen A.A., Loft A., Malchau S.S., Forman J., Andersen A.N. Large baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique? // Hum. Reprod. – 2014. – Vol. 29(3). – P. 618-627. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det440
Berntsen S., Pinborg A. Large for gestational age and macrosomia in singletons born after frozen/thawed embryo transfer (FET) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) // Birth Def. Res. – 2018. – Vol. 110 (8). – P. 630-643. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1219
Litzky J.F., Boulet S.L., Esfandiari N., Zhang Y., Kissin D.M., Theiler R.N., Marsit C.J. Effect of frozen/thawed embryo transfer on birthweight, macrosomia, and low birthweight rates in US singleton infants // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. – 2018. – Vol. 218 (4). – P. 433.e1-433.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.223
Ishii R., Shoda A., Kubo M., Okazaki S., Suzuki M., Okawa R., Enomoto M., Shitanaka M., Fujita Y., Nakao K., Shimada N., Horikawa M., Negishi H., Taketani Y. Identifying a possible factor for the increased newborn size in singleton pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology using cryopreserved embryos, in comparison with fresh embryos // Reprod. Med. Biol. – 2018. – Vol. 17 (3). – P. 307-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12206
Hwang S.S., Dukhovny D., Gopal D., Cabral H., Diop H., Coddington C.C., Stern J.E. Health outcomes for Massachusetts infants after fresh versus frozen embryo transfer // Fertil. Steril. – 2019. – Vol. 112 (5). – P. 900-907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.010
Ainsworth A.J., Wyatt M.A., Shenoy C.C., Hathcock M., Coddington C.C. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer has no effect on childhood weight // Fertil. Steril. – 2019. – Vol. 112 (4). – P. 684.e1-690.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.020
Chen Z.-J., Shi Y., Sun Y., Zhang B., Liang X., Cao Y., Yang J., Liu J., Wei D., Weng N., Tian L., Hao C., Yang D., Zhou F., Shi J., Xu Y., Li J., Yan J., Qin Y., Zhao H., Zhang H., Legro R.S. Fresh versus Frozen Embryos for Infertility in the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2016. – Vol. 375 (6). – P. 523-533. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513873
Mizrak I., Asserhøj L.L., Lund M.A.V., Kielstrup L.R., Greisen G., Clausen T.D., Main K.M., Jensen R.B., Vejlstrup N.G., Madsen P.L., Pinborg A. Cardiovascular function in 8- to 9-year-old singletons born after ART with frozen and fresh embryo transfer // Hum. Reprod. – 2022. – Vol. 37 (3). – P. 600–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab284
Elias F.T.S., Weber-Adrian D., Pudwell J., Carter J., Walker M., Gaudet L., Smith G., Velez M.P. Neonatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies conceived by fresh or frozen embryo transfer compared to spontaneous conceptions: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. – 2020. – Vol. 302 (1). – P. 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05593-4
Terho A.M., Pelkonen S., Toikkanen R., Koivurova S., Salo J., Nuojua-Huttunen S., Pokka T., Gissler M., Tiitinen A., Martikainen H. Childhood growth of term singletons born after frozen compared with fresh embryo transfer // Reprod. BioMed. Online. – 2021. – Vol. 43 (4). – P. 719-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.002
Vuong L.N., Ly T.T., Nguyen N.A., Nguyen L.M.T., Le X.T.H., Le T.K., Le K.T.Q., Le T.V., Nguyen M.H.N., Dang V.Q., Norman R.J., Mol B.W., Ho T.M. Development of children born from freeze-only versus fresh embryo transfer: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial // Fertil. Steril. – 2020. – Vol. 114 (3). – P. 558-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.041
Rienzi L., Cobo A., Paffoni A. 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. Upd. – 2017. – Vol. 23 (2). – P. 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmw038
Ghobara T., Gelbaya T.A., Ayeleke R.O. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer // Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. – 2017. – Vol. 7 (7). – P. CD003414. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003414.pub3
Tournaye H., Blockeel C., Zegers-Hochschild F. A new classification system for the clinical assisted reproduction laboratory: a common European framework // Hum. Reprod, – 2017. – Vol. 32 (9). – P. 1782-1784. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew082
Groenewoud E.R. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis // Hum. Reprod. Upd. – 2013. – Vol. 19 (5). – P. 458-470. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt030
Sermon K. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists // Mol. Hum. Reprod. – 2016. – Vol. 22 (8). – P. 845-857. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaw034
Zenzes M.T. Smoking and reproduction: gene damage to human gametes and embryos // Hum. Reprod Upd. – 2015. – Vol. 21 (2). – P. 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv001
Provost M.P., Acharya K.S., Acharya C.R., Yeh J.S., Steward R.G., Eaton J.L., Goldfarb J.M., Muasher S.J. Pregnancy outcomes decline with increasing body mass index: analysis of 239,127 fresh autologous in vitro fertilization cycles from the 2008-2010 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry // Fertil. Steril. – 2016. – Vol. 105 (3). – P. 663-669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.008
Sermondade N., Huberlant S., Bourhis-Lefebvre V. Female obesity is negatively associated with live birth rate following IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Hum. Reprod. Upd. – 2019. – Vol. 25 (4). – P. 439-451. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz011
McAuliffe F.M., Kenny L.C., Khashan A.S. Management of prepregnancy, pregnancy, and postpartum obesity from the FIGO Pregnancy and Non‐Communicable Diseases Committee: A FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) guideline // Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. – 2020. – Vol. 151 (1) – P. 16. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fijgo.13334
Gameiro S., Boivin J., Dancet E., de Klerk C., Emery M., Lewis-Jones C., Thorn P., Van den Broeck U., Venetis C., Verhaak C.M., Wischmann T., Vermeulen N. (2015). ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction – a guide for fertility staff // Hum. Reprod. – 2015. – Vol. 30 (11). – P. 2476-2485. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev177
Cesta C.E., Matorras R., Azumendi A. Depression, anxiety, and antidepressant treatment in women: association with in vitro fertilization outcome // Fertil. Steril. – 2016. – Vol. 105 (6). – P. 1594-1602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.036
Ricci E., Noli S., Ferrari S., La Vecchia I., Cipriani S., De Cosmi V., Somigliana E., Parazzini F. (2018). Alcohol and smoking affect pregnancy outcome in women with polycystic ovary syndrome // Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. – 2018. – Vol. 221. – P. 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.12.019
Mikkelsen E.M., Riis A.H., Wise L.A. Alcohol consumption and fecundability: prospective Danish cohort study // BMJ. – 2016. – Vol. 354. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4262
Kumar S., Sharma A., Kshetrimayum C. Environmental & occupational exposure & female reproductive dysfunction // Indian J. Med. Res. – 2019. – Vol. 150 (6). – P. 532. https://doi.org/10.4103%2Fijmr.IJMR_1652_17
Giulioni C., Maurizi V., Castellani D., Scarcella S., Skrami E., Balercia G., Galosi A.B. The environmental and occupational influence of pesticides on male fertility: A systematic review of human studies // Andrology. – 2022. – Vol. 10 (7). – P. 1250-1271. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.13228
Султанмуратова Д., Исенова С., Абдыкалык А., Абдиева Д. Современные подходы к оценке готовности орга- низма к родам и успешности индукции родов: обзор литературы // Репрод. Мед. – 2023. – № 1 (54). – С. 42-49 [Sultanmuratova D., Isenova S., Abdykalyk A., Abdieva D. Sovremennye podxody k ocenke gotovnosti organizma k rodam i uspeshnosti indukcii rodov: obzor literatury // Reprod. Med. – 2023. – № 1 (54). – S. 42-49 (in Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.37800/RM.1.2023.42-49
Harper J., Jackson E., Sermon K., Aitken R.J. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? // Hum. Reprod. – 2017. – Vol. 32 (3). – P. 485-491. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex004
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Reproductive Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The articles published in this Journal are licensed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No Derivatives 4.0 International) license, which provides for their non-commercial use only. Under this license, users have the right to copy and distribute the material in copyright but are not permitted to modify or use it for commercial purposes. Full details on the licensing are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
