Published date: Aug 19 2023

Journal Title: International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine

Issue title: International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine (IJRM): Volume 21, Issue No. 7

Pages: 551–556

DOI: 10.18502/ijrm.v21i7.13891

Ramesh Baradaran Bagheridr.rameshbb@gmail.comDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

Mahshid BazrafkanReproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.

Abbas SabourAlborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

Mina AtaeiReproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.

Bita BadehnooshDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dietary Supplements and Probiotics Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

Banafsheh MashakSchool of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

Bahareh KhakifiroozDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kamali Hospital, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

Ramin MoghaddamInternational Academy of Health Sciences Informatics (IAHSI), Geneva, Switzerland.

Background: The benefits of frozen embryo transfer (FET) vs. fresh embryo transfer for in vitro fertilization (IVF) have been discussed in previous studies.

Objective: To determine and compare the pregnancy outcomes following FET and frozen embryo transfer in women who underwent assisted reproductive techniques.

Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 233 women candidates for IVF/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection who referred to the Kamali Training Medical Center, Karaj, Iran during 2019-2020 were evaluated in 2 groups of fresh (n = 127) and frozen (n = 106) embryo transfers. The rates of pregnancy outcomes including chemical and clinical pregnancy, live birth, preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, still birth, and pregnancy loss were compared between groups in 3 age subgroups (< 25, 25-35, and 35-40 yr old).

Results: No significant difference in terms of chemical and clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were observed between groups in women aged < 25 yr. Chemical and clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly higher in the FET group compared to fresh group in 25-35-yr-old women (p = 0.01, p = 0.03, and p = 0.01, respectively). In 35-40-yr-old women, no significant differences were observed in terms of chemical and clinical pregnancy rates, but live birth rate was found to be significantly higher in the FET group (p = 0.02). The pregnancy loss was lower in the FET group (p = 0.038).

Conclusion: In conclusion, the FET method in women aged 25-35 yr significantly increases the chance of successful IVF/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection.

Key words: Assisted reproductive techniques, In vitro fertilization, Embryo transfer, Cryopreservation, Outcome assessment. 

[1] Chang J-Ch, Yi Y-Ch, Shen P-Sh, Guu H-F, Chen Y-F, Kung H-F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy: A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 60: 125–131.

[2] Bell JL, Hardy P, Greenland M, Juszczak E, Cole Ch, Maheshwari A, et al. E-Freeze: A randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: A statistical analysis plan. Trials 2020; 21: 596.

[3] Maheshwari A, Pandey Sh, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative metaanalysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update 2018; 24: 35–58.

[4] Da Silva ShG, da Silveira MF, Bertoldi AD, Domingues MR, da Silva Dos Santos I. Maternal and child-health outcomes in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology (ART): A prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020; 20: 106.

[5] Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi Sh, Oskouian L. Retraction note to: Can fresh embryo transfers be replaced by cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in assisted reproductive cycles? A randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30: 1245.

[6] Aflatoonian A, Karimzadrh 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.

[7] Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Sola 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: 156–162.

[8] Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, Zhang H, Wei D, Zhang Y, et al. Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. New Engl J Med 2018; 378: 126–136.

[9] Zech J, Brandao A, Zech M, Lugger K, Neururer S, Ulmer H, et al. Elective frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in women at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Reprod Biol 2018; 18: 46–52.

[10] Shin JJ, Jeong Y, Nho E, Jee BC. Clinical outcomes of frozen embryo transfer cycles after freeze-all policy to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2018; 61: 497–504.

[11] Wu JL, Keller P, Kanchwala M, Xing C, Babayev SN, Carr BR, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols alter endometrial histomorphology and gene expression profiles. Reprod Sci 2020; 27: 895–904.

[12] Sha T, Yin X, Cheng W, Massey IY. Pregnancy-related complications and perinatal outcomes resulting from transfer of cryopreserved versus fresh embryos in vitro fertilization: A meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 330– 342.

[13] Severino AI, Povoa AM. Frozen embryo transfer and preeclampsia risk. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021; 50: 102167.