Embryo long-term storage does not affect assisted reproductive technologies outcome: analysis of 58,001 vitrified blastocysts over 11 years.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the potential detrimental effect that the duration of storage time may have on vitrified samples has raised some concerns, especially when some studies found an association between cryostorage length and decreased clinical results. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the storage time length of day-5 vitrified blastocysts in 2 study groups: freeze-all cycles and nonelective frozen embryo transfers. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study that included 58,001 vitrified/warmed day-5 blastocysts from 2 different populations, according to the reason for frozen embryo transfer. Elective frozen embryo transfer comprised freeze-all cycles (N=16,615 blastocysts and 16,615 patients) in which only single embryo transfers and only the first frozen embryo transfer were included. The nonelective frozen embryo transfer group included 41,386 embryos from 25,571 patients where frozen embryo transfer took place using supernumerary embryos after fresh embryo transfer. All the possible frozen embryo transfers were included. Both single embryo transfer and double embryo transfers were included. Donor and autologous oocytes were used. The period covered by this study was 11 years. The blastocyst sample was clustered into deciles, which provided specific storage duration categories. The main outcome was the live birth rate, and secondary outcomes were embryo survival, miscarriage, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates according to storage duration. The impact of storage time was assessed by univariable analyses in both groups. The comparison was made between each decile and the last one. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, including the variables with significant association found in the univariate analysis. Student t test and chi-square tests, or an analysis of variance, were used wherever appropriate. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There were statistical differences in baseline characteristics of patients included in the study groups. Storage durations ranged from ≤0.67 to ≥4.34 and from ≤1.8 to ≥34.81 months in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer, respectively. Embryo survival did not show statistical differences across the categories of storage time in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer groups. Statistical differences were found for the live birth rate across some, but not all, the subgroups of storage duration. The multivariable analysis showed no association between storage time and the live birth rate in both groups (nonsignificant). Blastocyst quality, body mass index, number of retrieved oocytes, endometrial preparation, male factor, and uterine factor were related to the drop in the live birth rate in the freeze-all group (P<.05). In the nonelective frozen embryo transfer group, the variables that showed significant association with the live birth rate were age at retrieval and frozen embryo transfer, type of frozen embryo transfer (single embryo transfer or double embryo transfers), number of retrieved oocytes, body mass index, endometrial preparation, origin of sperm sample, and female factor. CONCLUSION: This large study demonstrated no association between storage time and clinical outcome. Other variables, such as the patient's age, embryo quality, body mass index, and etiology, are somewhat responsible for impacting the outcome. This provides evidence for the safety of embryo vitrification, even after long storage periods. This is reassuring for both in vitro fertilization practitioners and patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer of either elective or nonelective embryos.

Higher pre-pregnancy body mass index was associated with adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome after a freeze-all strategy: A historical cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated that abnormal body mass index (BMI) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. However, the relationship between BMI and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) remains unclear. Furthermore, whether a diagnosis of PCOS could result in adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in women with different BMIs remains unknown. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A historical cohort study included 1667 women with PCOS and 12 256 women without PCOS after a freeze-all policy between January 2016 and December 2020. The outcomes encompassed both pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and restricted cubic spline models were performed to eliminate confounding factors when investigating the relationship between BMI and different outcomes. RESULTS: After controlling for covariates, pregnancy outcomes were comparable between underweight women with PCOS and normal weight women with PCOS. However, overweight patients had a lower clinical pregnancy rate and an overall live birth rate. Furthermore, patients with obesity had a lower rate of multiple pregnancies but a higher rate of biochemical pregnancy than in the normal BMI group. Additionally, the restricted cubic spline models showed that as maternal BMI increased to 32 kg/m2, the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate after blastocyst transfer decreased, but the risks of preterm birth, gestational diabetes mellitus, macrosomia, large-for-gestational age (LGA) and very LGA increased in patients with PCOS after a freeze-all strategy. Moreover, a diagnosis of PCOS resulted in a higher clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate and a higher risk of small-for-gestational age in the normal weight group. However, women with PCOS in the overweight group exhibited higher risks of very preterm birth and gestational diabetes mellitus compared with women without PCOS. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a higher BMI had a detrimental impact on the pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of PCOS patients undergoing a freeze-all strategy. However, it was only statistically significant in the overweight group. A diagnosis of PCOS had a higher clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate in normal weight women but higher risks of perinatal complications in normal weight and overweight women.

Can serum progesterone concentration direct a fresh or freeze-all transfer strategy in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle?

PURPOSE: To examine the interaction between serum progesterone concentration on the trigger day and choice of freeze-all and fresh transfer strategies on live birth in an unselected population as well as in patients over 35 years old. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 26,661 patients commencing their first IVF cycle in a large fertility centre between 2015 and 2019, including 4687 patients over 35 years old. We performed a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis within a logistic regression model to investigate the interaction between serum progesterone concentration and the choice of freeze-all or fresh transfer strategy following the first transfer. RESULTS: 15,539 patients underwent a fresh embryo transfer and 11,122 underwent a freeze-all strategy in their first IVF cycle. The freeze-all group had a higher live birth rate compared to the fresh group (43.9% vs 40.3%). After adjusting for confounding factors, there was a positive interaction between serum progesterone concentrations and the choice of a freeze-all versus fresh embryo transfer on live birth (p for interaction 0.0001), with a larger magnitude of effect when progesterone concentration was higher. Such an interaction was also observed in patients over 35 years old (p for interaction 0.01), but the treatment effect curve over progesterone concentrations was almost flat. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected population, frozen transfer is associated with greater chances of live birth, especially in patients with higher serum progesterone concentration. In patients over 35 years old, the benefit of a freeze-all policy appears small across all serum progesterone concentrations.

Effect of GnRH agonist trigger with or without low-dose hCG on reproductive outcomes for PCOS women with freeze-all strategy: a propensity score matching study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger alone versus dual trigger comprising GnRHa and low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) on reproductive outcomes in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who received the freeze-all strategy. METHODS: A total of 615 cycles were included in this retrospective cohort study. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control potential confounding factors between GnRHa-trigger group (0.2 mg GnRHa) and dual-trigger group (0.2 mg GnRHa plus 1000/2000 IU hCG) in a 1:1 ratio. Multivariate logistic regression was applied to estimate the association between trigger methods and reproductive outcomes. RESULTS: After PSM, patients with dual trigger (n = 176) had more oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, and 2PN embryos compared to that with GnRHa trigger alone. However, the oocytes maturation rate, normal fertilization rate, and frozen embryos between the two groups were not statistically different. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (14.8% vs. 2.8%, P < 0.001) and moderate/severe OHSS (11.4% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in dual-trigger group than in GnRHa-alone group. Logistic regression analysis showed the adjusted odds ratio of dual trigger was 5.971 (95% confidence interval 2.201-16.198, P < 0.001) for OHSS. The pregnancy and single neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For PCOS women with freeze-all strategy, GnRHa trigger alone decreased the risk of OHSS without damaging oocyte maturation and achieved satisfactory pregnancy outcomes.

Psychosocial wellbeing shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy compared with a fresh transfer strategy in women and men: a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the psychosocial wellbeing affected in women and men shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer compared to a fresh transfer strategy? SUMMARY ANSWER: In general, psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) was similar in women and men allocated to a freeze-all versus those allocated to a fresh-transfer strategy 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy (i.e. 4 days after oocyte retrieval), although women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to women in the fresh transfer group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of a freeze-all strategy, i.e. freezing of the entire embryo cohort followed by elective frozen embryo transfer in subsequent cycles has increased steadily over the past decade in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This strategy essentially eliminates the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and has proven beneficial regarding some reproductive outcomes in subgroups of women. However, patients experience a longer time interval between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer, hence a longer time to pregnancy, possibly adding additional stress to the ART treatment. So far, little focus has been on the possible psychosocial strains caused by postponement of embryo transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a self-reported questionnaire based sub-study of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 460 women and 396 male partners initiating their first, second, or third treatment cycle of invitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from May 2016 to September 2018. This sub-study was included in the primary project protocol and project plan for the RCT, as psychosocial wellbeing was considered a secondary outcome. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women from eight public fertility clinics in Denmark and Sweden and one private clinic in Spain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio on the day of inclusion (menstrual cycle day 2 or 3) to either a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer to a subsequent modified natural menstrual cycle or a fresh transfer strategy with embryo transfer in the hormone stimulated cycle. Treatment allocation was blinded until the day of the ovulation trigger. Women and their male partners were asked to complete a validated self-reported questionnaire 6 days after unblinding of treatment group allocation, corresponding to 4 days after oocyte retrieval, investigating their psychosocial wellbeing related to the treatment defined as emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit. The questionnaire included items from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Fertility Problem Stress Scales and the COMPI Marital Benefit Measure. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups for both women and men. In total, response rates were 90.7% for women and 90.2% for men. In the freeze-all group, 207 women and 179 men completed the questionnaire compared with 204 women and 178 men in the fresh transfer group. Men in the two treatment groups did not differ in any of the explored aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy. Women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms (P = 0.045) and mood swings (P = 0.001) (i.e. variables included in 'emotional reactions to treatment') compared to women in the fresh transfer group. When adjusted for multiple testing, depressive symptoms were no longer significantly different between the two groups. No additional differences in psychosocial wellbeing were found. Self-reported quality-of-life during treatment was also rated as similar between the two groups in both women and men, but was slightly lower than they would rate their quality-of-life when not in fertility treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although response rates were high, selection bias cannot be excluded. As this study was an RCT, we assume that psychosocial characteristics of the participants were equally distributed in the two groups, thus it is unlikely that the identified psychosocial differences between the freeze-all and fresh transfer group were present already at baseline. Furthermore, the questionnaire was completed as a one-time assessment 4 days after oocyte retrieval, thus not reflecting the whole treatment process, whereas an assessment after the full completed treatment cycle is needed to draw firm conclusions about the psychosocial consequences of the whole waiting period. However, a question posted that late would be highly biased on whether or not a pregnancy had been achieved. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results indicate that individuals in the freeze-all group exhibited slightly higher levels of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to those in the fresh transfer group. Nevertheless, it is important to note that any worries related to potential emotional strains stemming from delaying embryo transfer should not overshadow the adoption of a freeze-all approach in cases where it is clinically recommended. As long as patients are provided with comprehensive information about the treatment strategy before initiating the process, it is worth emphasising that other aspects of psychosocial wellbeing were comparable between the two groups. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study is part of the Reprounion collaborative study, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak. L.P. reports financial support from Merck A/S. H.S.N. reports grants from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, Ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond and Independent Research Fund Denmark and personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, Cook Medical, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. H.S.N is founder and chairman of the Maternity Foundation and co-developed the Safe Delivery App (non-profit). N.C.F. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck A/S, Cryos International and financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. N.C.F. is chairman in the steering committee for the guideline groups for The Danish Fertility Society (non-profit). P.H. reports honoraria from Merch A/S, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. A.L.M.E. reports grants and financial support from Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and personal fees from Preglem S.A., Novo Nordic Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos International, Merch A/S, Theramex and Organon and the lend of embryoscope to the institution from Gedeon Richter. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

The time interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen embryo transfer does not impact reproductive outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the time interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen embryo transfer (FET) affect pregnancy outcomes after a freeze-all strategy? DESIGN: Retrospective study including a total of 5995 patients who underwent their first FET following a freeze-all cycle between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020. Patients were divided into immediate (the interval between oocyte retrieval and the day of first FET ≤40 days), delayed (>40 days but ≤180 days) and overdue groups (>180 days). Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were analysed, and multivariable regression analysis was used to study the effect of FET timing on the live birth rate (LBR) in the entire cohort and the different subgroups. RESULTS: The LBR was significantly lower in the overdue group than in the delayed group (34.9% versus 42.8%, P = 0.002); however, after adjusting for confounding factors, the difference was not statistically significant. The immediate group had a comparable LBR (36.9%) to the other two groups in both the crude and adjusted analyses. Multivariable regression analysis showed no impact of FET timing on LBR in the whole cohort or in the subgroups according to ovarian stimulation protocol, trigger type, insemination method, reason for freezing all, FET protocol or transferred embryo stage. CONCLUSIONS: The time interval between oocyte retrieval and FET does not impact reproductive outcomes. Unnecessary delays in FET should be avoided to shorten the time to live birth.

Free your patients and yourself from day 2-3: start ovarian stimulation any time in freeze-all cycles.

Ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology is traditionally started in the early follicular phase. The essential rationale is to allow timely follicle growth and oocyte retrieval to ensure synchronization of the in-vitro cultured embryos with the receptive period of the endometrium in a fresh transfer cycle. In addition, conventional thought suggested that follicle recruitment happened only once, around menstruation. A deeper understanding of folliculogenesis, advances in cryobiology and an increasing proportion of freeze-all cycles provide a unique opportunity here. Experience from oncofertility patients as well as infertile women and oocyte donors who underwent ovarian stimulation in different phases of the menstrual cycle, dubbed 'random start' cycles, suggests that the number of oocytes collected and their reproductive potential do not depend on the time of starting ovarian stimulation, although the duration of stimulation and gonadotrophin consumption can vary slightly. It may be time to free both patients and clinics from the obsession with starting ovarian stimulation in the early follicular phase in planned freeze-all cycles. The flexibility provided by random start cycles is one aspect of individualizing treatment to patients' needs.

Clinical outcome of different embryo transfer strategies after late rescue ICSI procedure: a 10-year total fertilisation failure cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Late rescue intracytoplasmic sperm injection (r-ICSI) has not been widely accepted as an alternative solution for unexpected total fertilisation failure (TFF) after in vitro fertilisation (IVF), due to the time-dependent in vitro deterioration of oocyte quality and endometrial growth not being synchronised with embryo development. This study aimed to evaluate the safety profile and effectiveness of freeze-all blastocyst transfer in combination with late r-ICSI. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study carried out at the Reproductive Centre of Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. All participants received treatment between 2009 and 2019. 2,270 patients in the aggregate encountered unexpected TFF during 149,054 cycles of IVF and adopted a late r-ICSI procedure. Among these patients, 263 women did not have cleavage-stage embryos available for evaluation. The remaining patients were grouped according to different embryo transfer (ET) strategies (926 women in Group 1 underwent fresh ET, 365 women in Group 2 underwent freeze-all ET, 716 women in Group 3 experienced blastulation failure). Patients received different ET strategies after r-ICSI, with the main outcome measures included live birth rate (LBR), cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), and conservative cLBR. RESULTS: TFF occurred in 7.4% of all IVF cycles. Group 1 tended to be older at oocyte retrieval, with more infertile years, higher follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels, higher gonadotropin consumption, and fewer oocytes retrieved. Group 2 exhibited considerably better LBRs following the first ET cycle (37.53% vs. 4.64%) and cLBRs (52.60% vs. 8.21%). After adjustment for covariates using binary logistic regression analyses, Group 2 still showed better obstetric performance in LBRs [OR:11.77, 95% CI (8.42-16.45)], cLBRs (OR:11.29, 95% CI (7.84-16.27)], and conservative cLBRs (OR:2.55, 95% CI (1.83-3.55)]. Additionally, the two groups showed similar miscarriage rates, whilst no new-borns with malformations or congenital diseases were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Freeze-all blastocyst stage ET serves as an optimal strategy to support late r-ICSI. However, for women with limited oocytes available for r-ICSI use, weighing the benefits against the costs of the procedure might be prudent before implementing in vitro blastulation.

Incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in high responders after gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger in "freeze-all" approach.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in high responders (25-35 follicles with a diameter of ≥12 mm on day of triggering) who received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to trigger final follicular maturation. METHODS: We used individual data from women who participated in four different clinical trials and were high responders to ovarian stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol in this retrospective combined analysis. All women were evaluated for signs and symptoms of OHSS using identical criteria based on Golan's system (1989). RESULTS: High responders (n = 77) were of different ethnicities. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between women with or without signs and symptoms of OHSS. Mean ± standard deviation baseline data were: age, 32.3 ± 3.5 years; anti-Müllerian hormone, 42.4 ± 20.7 pmol/L; antral follicle count, 21.5 ± 9.2. Before triggering, duration of stimulation was 9.5 ± 1.6 days and the mean number of follicles with a diameter of ≥12 mm and ≥17 mm was 26.5 ± 4.4 and 8.8 ± 4.7, respectively. Mean serum estradiol (17,159 pmol/l) and progesterone (5.1 nmol/l) levels were high at 36 h after triggering. Overall, 17/77 high responders (22%) developed signs and symptoms of mild OHSS which lasted 6-21 days. The most frequently prescribed medication was cabergoline to prevent worsening of OHSS. No severe OHSS occurred and no OHSS cases were reported as serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: High responders receiving GnRH agonist for triggering should be informed that they may experience signs and symptoms of mild OHSS.

Progesterone levels during ovarian stimulation in segmented ART cycles inversely correlate with normalized birthweight of neonates conceived through subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between serum progesterone (P) at the day of ovulation trigger and neonatal birthweight in singletons born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer in segmented ART cycles. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study involving data from patients who achieved uncomplicated pregnancy and term delivery of ART-conceived singleton babies following a segmented GnRH antagonist cycle. The main outcome was birthweight's z-score of the neonate. Univariate and multivariate linear logistic regression analyses were made to investigate the relation of z-score with variables inherent to the patient and to the ovarian stimulation. The variable P per oocyte was created by dividing the value of progesterone at ovulation trigger by the number of oocytes retrieved at oocyte retrieval. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were included in the analysis. At univariate linear regression, the birthweight z-score of the neonate appeared to be inversely related to both P levels at the ovulation trigger (- 0.101, p = 0.015) and P levels per oocyte at trigger (- 1.417, p = 0.001), while it was directly related to the height of the mother (0.026, p = 0.002) and to the number of previous live births (0.291, p = 0.016). In multivariate analysis, both serum P (- 0.1; p = 0.015) and P per oocyte (- 1.347, p = 0.002) maintained the significant inverse association with birthweight z-score after adjusting for height and parity. CONCLUSIONS: Serum progesterone level on the day of ovulation trigger inversely correlates with normalized birthweight of neonates in segmented GnRH antagonist ART cycles.

Extending the culture of cleavage-stage embryos to the blastocyst stage after warming increases the chance of live birth: does it have a regenerative effect?

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of extending the culture of cleavage-stage embryos to the blastocyst stage in vitrified-warmed cycles on pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospectively designed pilot study of a single center. All patients who applied for freeze-all cycle procedures during in vitro fertilization treatment were included in the study. Patients were classified into three subgroups. The embryos obtained were frozen at the cleavage or blastocyst stage. After a warming process, the cleavage-stage embryos were divided into two subgroups: the first group of embryos was transferred (vitrification day 3-embryo transfer (ET) day 3 (D3T3)) on the warming day; for the second group, the embryo culture was extended to the blastocyst stage (vitrification day 3-ET day 5 (after the extension of the embryo culture to the blastocyst stage), (D3T5)). Frozen blastocyst-stage embryos were transferred after warming (vitrification day 5-ET day 5 (D5T5)). Hormone replacement treatment was the only endometrial preparation regimen given during the embryo transfer cycle. The main outcome of the study was live birth rates. The clinical pregnancy rate and positive pregnancy test rate were determined as the secondary outcomes of the study. RESULTS: The study included a total of 194 patients. The positive pregnancy test rates (PPR) and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) of the D3T3, D3T5, and D5T5 groups were 14.0% and 59.2%; 43.8% and 9.3%; and 56.3% and 39.6%, respectively (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). The live birth rates (LBR) of patients in the D3T3, D3T5, and D5T5 groups were 7.0%, 44.7%, and 27.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis of patients with a poor number of 2PN embryos (defined as having < = 4 2PN embryos), the D3T5 group had significantly higher PPR (10.7%, 60.6%, 42.4%; p < 0.001), CPR (7.1%, 57.6%, 39.4%; p < 0.001), and LBR (3.6%, 39.4%, 21.2%; p: 0.001). CONCLUSION: Extending the culture after warming to the blastocyst stage may be a better alternative than a cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

Pro: Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer. Is frozen embryo transfer the future?

Embryo cryopreservation has been an integral part of ART for close to 40 years and vitrification has boosted overall ART efficacy and safety. Recently, there has been a vivid scientific discussion on whether elective cryopreservation of all embryos (freeze-all) should be pursued for most patients, with a fresh embryo transfer taking place only in selected cases. In terms of efficacy, the available evidence suggests that the freeze-all strategy leads to higher live birth rates after the first embryo transfer compared to the conventional strategy in high responders, while there is no difference in normal responders. There is no evidence to suggest that the freeze-all strategy is inferior to the conventional strategy of fresh transfer when comparing cumulative live birth rates using data from all available randomized controlled trials. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is significantly reduced in the freeze-all policy. However, regarding obstetric complications and neonatal outcomes, the evidence suggests that each strategy is associated with certain risks and, therefore, there is no approach that could be unequivocally accepted as safer. Similarly, limited evidence does not support the notion that patients would be universally against freeze-all owing to the inevitable delay in pregnancy achievement. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of freeze-all is likely to vary in different settings and there have been studies supporting that this policy can be, under certain conditions, cost-effective. Adoption of the freeze-all policy can also allow for more flexible treatment strategies that have the potential to increase efficacy, reduce cost and make treatment easier for patients and clinics. Importantly, freeze-all does not require the use of any experimental technologies, further training of personnel or the costly acquisition of new equipment. For these reasons, transitioning to the freeze-all policy for most patients appears to be the next logical step in ART.

Con: freeze-all for all? One size does not fit all.

IVF has traditionally involved transfer of fresh embryos. However, a 'freeze-all' strategy where all embryos are cryopreserved for transfer in subsequent, unstimulated cycles has emerged as an alternative approach. This is thought to eliminate the negative effects of controlled ovarian stimulation on the endometrium and reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). There are a growing number of studies evaluating live birth rates after use of a freeze-all versus fresh embryo transfer (ET) strategy. However, results to date are inconsistent. Certainly, the benefits of a freeze-all strategy appear to be less clear cut in ovulatory women with infertility, while those with a good ovarian response (more than 10 or 15 oocytes retrieved) may be suitable candidates. Variable responses to a freeze-all strategy compared with fresh ET have also been reported depending on whether cleavage stage embryos or blastocysts were transferred. In terms of safety, the risk of OHSS appears to be lower with a freeze-all strategy. For other safety endpoints, some appear to be better when a freeze-all approach is used (e.g. rates of pregnancy loss/miscarriage, preterm delivery, low birthweight and small for gestational age) while other complications are more common (e.g. hypertensive disorders of pregnancy/pre-eclampsia, large for gestational age and high birthweight). Preliminary longer-term data suggest that a freeze-all strategy does not have a negative impact on childhood development. Other factors to consider include time to pregnancy (longer after freeze-all) and the relative cost-effectiveness of the two approaches. Available data are too inconsistent to allow a freeze-all approach to be recommended for all patients. Instead, a personalized, balanced approach should be taken based on individual patient characteristics (especially steroid hormone levels on the day of trigger) and incorporating patient preference. While a freeze-all strategy might be the right choice for some patients, freeze-all is definitely not good for all.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

STUDY QUESTION: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 61225414. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 16 February 2016.

Cumulative live birth rate after ovarian stimulation with freeze-all in women with polycystic ovaries: does the polycystic ovary syndrome phenotype have an impact?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) differ between polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) phenotypes when a freeze-all strategy is used to prevent OHSS after ovarian stimulation? DESIGN: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study of 422 women with PCOS or polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM), in whom a freeze-all strategy was applied after GnRH agonist triggering because of hyper-response in their first or second IVF/ICSI. Primary outcome was CLBR; multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Phenotype A (hyperandrogenism + ovulation disorder + PCOM [HOP]) (n = 91/422 [21.6%]); phenotype C (hyperandrogenism + PCOM [HP]) (33/422 [7.8%]; phenotype D (ovulation disorder + PCOM [OP]) (n = 161/422 [38.2%]); and PCOM (n = 137/422 [32.5%]. Unadjusted CLBR was similar among the groups (69.2%, 69.7%, 79.5% and 67.9%, respectively; P = 0.11). According to multivariate logistic regression analysis, the phenotype did not affect CLBR (OR 0.72, CI 0.24 to 2.14 [phenotype C]; OR 1.55, CI 0.71 to 3.36 [phenotype D]; OR 0.84, CI 0.39 to 1.83 [PCOM]; P = 0.2, with phenotype A as reference). CONCLUSIONS: In women with PCOS, hyper-response after ovarian stimulation confers CLBR of around 70%, irrespective of phenotype, when a freeze-all strategy is used. This contrasts with unfavourable clinical outcomes in women with hyperandrogenism and women with PCOS who underwent mild ovarian stimulation targeting normal ovarian response and fresh embryo transfer. The results should be interpreted with caution because the study is retrospective and cannot be generalized to all cycles as they pertain to those in which hyper-response is observed.

Age-specific blastocyst conversion rates in embryo cryopreservation cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the blastocyst conversion rate in embryo cryopreservation cycles, per year of female age? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study including patients undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle at our center with planned freeze-all strategy January 1st, 2014-June 30th, 2020. Primary outcome was blastocyst conversion rate. Secondary outcomes included mature oocyte and fertilization rates. Patients were stratified by year of age to assess oocyte yield and embryo development outcomes. RESULTS: 3,362 patients were included. The median blastocyst conversion rate in patients ≤30 was 66.7% (interquartile range 50.0-86.6) and remained statistically comparable through age 40 with a significant decline among ages ≥41 (41-years: marginal effect (ME) -5.2% (-9.7 to -0.7); 42-years: ME -9.6% (-14.3 to -4.8); 43-years: ME -7.7% (-12.8 to -2.6); ≥44-years: ME -20.8% (-26.5 to -15.1)). For the entire cohort, the median mature oocyte rate was 81.8% and the median fertilization rate was 81.8%. The mature oocyte and fertilization rates remained statistically comparable for each year of age except age ≥44 which had a statistically significantly increased mature oocyte rate (ME 4.4% (1.3 to 7.5)) and statistically significantly decreased fertilization rate (ME -5.8% (-9.8 to -1.9)) CONCLUSIONS: In embryo cryopreservation cycles, the blastocyst conversion rate remained statistically comparable through age 40 followed by a statistically significant decline for patients ≥41; however, the mature oocyte and fertilization rates were not impacted by increasing age until age ≥44. Even in women ≥44, over 40% of fertilized oocytes developed to blastocyst. Overall, this information is useful when counseling patients during the embryo culture stage regarding predicted blastocyst yield.

Cumulative live birth rates for low-prognosis women over 5 years or 9 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.

BACKGROUND: For heterogeneous populations of low-prognosis women, it remains unclear as to how long individuals should continue undergoing ART when attempting to have a baby, as there have been insufficient studies to date tracking the cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) for these women over the entire course of their ART treatment, particularly over extended time periods. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 17,698 women at a tertiary care academic medical center who had begun undergoing IVI/ICSI cycles using a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) approach between January 2013 and January 2019. Low-prognosis patients were stratified into four groups based upon POSEIDON criteria, with patients exhibiting normal or high ovarian reserves and response to stimulation (defined as AFC ≥5, > 9 oocytes retrieved) being included as controls (group 5). The CLBR within 5 years or 9 FET cycles from the ovum pick-up (OPU) day of the first cycle was the primary endpoint for this study, including all repetitive oocyte retrieval cycles and subsequent FET cycles. Optimistic and conservative approaches were used for the analysis of CLBRs and the depiction of cumulative incidence curves. RESULTS: Under both optimistic and conservative model analyses, normal and good responders exhibited the highest CLBR within 5 years or 9 FET cycles, followed by younger unexpected poor responders, younger expected poor responders, older unexpected poor responders, and older expected poor responders. Upward trends in CLBRs were evident across the five groups with the prolongation of time or an increase in FET cycle counts. Within the first 2 years or 3 FET cycles, the CLBRs rose rapidly, followed by more moderate increases over the following 2-3.5 years or 4-6 cycles, with expected poor responders exhibiting the most obvious improvements. All Patients reached a CLBR plateau after 3.5 years or 6 FET cycles. CONCLUSIONS: All low-prognosis women should undergo ART treatment for a minimum of 2 years or 3 FET cycles, and exhibit better outcomes when extending ART treatment to 3.5 years or 6 FET cycles (particularly for POSEIDON groups 3 and 4), but should consider ceasing further treatment thereafter due to a lack of apparent benefit.

Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome after GnRH Agonist Triggering and Freeze-All Protocol? Never Not, Hardly Ever: A Systematic Review of Case Reports.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a severe complication associated with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) triggering is considered an efficient strategy to prevent OHSS in the high-risk patient. METHODS: We performed a review of 11 cases of early and severe OHSS following GnRH-a triggering and freeze-all protocol. Electronic databases were searched from inception of each database until October 2021, to identify case reports and case series that reported OHSS after GnRH-a triggering and freeze-all approach describing patient demographics, COS protocol, and patient outcomes. RESULTS: From the literature review, it is possible to suggest that (1) following GnRH-a triggering, the risk of early and severe OHSS is not totally cancelled; (2) despite it is not possible to predict the event, polycystic ovary syndrome is the most common risk factor; (3) the use of GnRH antagonist starting from the day of PU may represent a valid strategy for preventing OHSS in women with high-risk profile; (4) following the unexpected onset of OHSS, measuring serum levels of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is helpful to exclude an inadvertent exogenous administration or a pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The statement that OHSS risk is eliminated when GnRH-a triggering, a freeze-all strategy, and no hCG in the luteal phase may generate the idea that this event cannot occur. Although rare, these cases have been observed in a relatively short period of time.

Anti-Müllerian hormone in guiding the selection of a freeze-all versus a fresh embryo transfer strategy: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: To explore an interaction effect between serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and the relative treatment effect of a freeze-all versus a fresh embryo transfer strategy on live birth. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study investigating couples with infertility and eligible for both freeze-all and fresh embryo transfer between 2017 and 2019. Women with an absolute indication for a freeze-all strategy were excluded. Multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis within a logistic regression model was used to evaluate whether the treatment effect of a freeze-all versus a fresh transfer strategy varied at different AMH levels. Non-linear interactions were also considered. The primary outcome was the live birth after the first transfer. RESULTS: A total of 13,503 women underwent a fresh embryo transfer and 2247 women underwent a freeze-all strategy. Live birth rates were slightly higher in the freeze-all group compared to those in the fresh embryo transfer group (35% vs 33%). There was a non-linear interaction between baseline serum AMH levels and the relative treatment effect of a freeze-all strategy versus a fresh transfer strategy on live birth (P = 0.0161). The benefit on live birth from a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy was greatest in women with a high serum level (> 7 ng/ml). The interaction remained valid when different imputation methods were used. CONCLUSION: As serum AMH level increased, there was a nonlinear increase in relative treatment effect of a freeze-only transfer versus a fresh transfer strategy on live birth, and such an effect reaches its maximum in women with high AMH levels.

Algorithm-based individualization methodology of the starting gonadotropin dose in IVF/ICSI and the freeze-all strategy prevent OHSS equally in normal responders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the evidence.

PURPOSE: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) represents a rare but dangerous condition associated with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in IVF/ICSI. Over the last decades, many strategies have been introduced into clinical practice with the objective of preventing this potentially life-threatening condition. Among these, the freeze-all policy has gained great popularity, thanks to improvements in vitrification. Nevertheless, not all clinics have adequate skills in vitrification procedures and patients may be dissatisfied with a longer time to pregnancy. METHODS: This study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing different strategies of ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles (freeze-all policy, algorithm-based individualization of the starting dose, experience-based individualization of the starting dose, standard dose) in terms of reduction of OHSS, in normal responders. RESULTS: The results indicate that only the algorithm-based individualization of the starting gonadotropin dose reduces OHSS similarly to the freeze-all strategy. CONCLUSION: Albeit in the era of the freeze-all policy, the personalization of the starting gonadotropin dose obtained by the use of algorithms should be pursued as a valid and safe option for IVF.