Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine (대한생식의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Preferred strategy for euploid single embryo transfer in advanced maternal age: Fresh versus frozen

  • Fatma Ozdemir (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine) ;
  • Gokalp Oner (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kayseri System Hospital, In Vitro Fertilisation Center) ;
  • Semra Kahraman (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sisli Memorial Hospital, In Vitro Fertilisation Center) ;
  • Yucel Sahin (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sisli Memorial Hospital, In Vitro Fertilisation Center) ;
  • Hakan Yelke (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sisli Memorial Hospital, In Vitro Fertilisation Center)
  • Received : 2023.05.30
  • Accepted : 2023.08.28
  • Published : 2024.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare fresh and frozen-thawed euploid blastocyst transfer protocols following preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in cases of advanced maternal age. Methods: A total of 330 patients were examined retrospectively. PGS was performed on the embryos of 146 patients for whom fresh transfers were chosen. In contrast, frozen-thawed euploid single embryo transfer (ET) was selected after PGS for 184 patients, and their embryos were vitrified. The percentage of euploid embryos and rates of implantation, pregnancy, and pregnancy continuity, as well as clinical and biochemical abortion rates, were compared. Results: The numbers of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, and fertilized ova were greater in the frozen-thawed group. The percentages of euploid embryos were comparable between the fresh and frozen-thawed groups (32% vs. 34.8%, respectively). The rates of implantation (46.6%vs. 62.5%), pregnancy (50% vs. 66.8%), ongoing pregnancy (38.4% vs. 53.8%), and live birth percentage (37.0% vs. 53.8%) were significantly higher in the frozen-thawed group. However, no significant differences were found in the clinical and biochemical abortion rates. Conclusion: The use of frozen-thawed single euploid ET is associated with increased implantation and pregnancy rates compared to fresh single euploid ET with PGS.

Keywords

References

  1. Munne S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995;64:382-91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)57739-5
  2. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, Michiels A, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2849-58.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh536
  3. Munne S, Chen S, Fischer J, Colls P, Zheng X, Stevens J, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005;84:331-5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.027
  4. Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2013;100:624-30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.039
  5. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1700-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.015
  6. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1173-81.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu033
  7. Cedars MI. Fresh versus frozen: initial transfer or cumulative cycle results: how do we interpret results and design studies? Fertil Steril 2016;106:251-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.001
  8. Evans J, Hannan NJ, Edgell TA, Vollenhoven BJ, Lutjen PJ, Osianlis T, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:808-21.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu027
  9. Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2017;107:723-30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.022
  10. Lee HL, McCulloh DH, Hodes-Wertz B, Adler A, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015;32:435-44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0417-7
  11. Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update 1997;3:367-82.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/3.4.367
  12. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril 2013;100:1695-703.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.2002
  13. Casper RF, Yanushpolsky EH. Optimal endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer cycles: window of implantation and progesterone support. Fertil Steril 2016;105:867-72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.006
  14. Roque M, Valle M, Guimaraes F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2015;103:1190-3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.045
  15. 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;25:2-14.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy033
  16. Ma GC, Chen HF, Yang YS, Lin WH, Tsai FP, Lin CF, et al. A pilot proof-of-principle study to compare fresh and vitrified cycle pre-implantation genetic screening by chromosome microarray and next generation sequencing. Mol Cytogenet 2016;9:25.