Effect of the time for embryo transfer from oocyte retrieval on clinical outcomes in freeze-all cycles: a retrospective cohort study

The optimal timing of frozen-thawed embryo transfer: delayed or not delayed? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The use of frozen embryo transfer (FET) has grown exponentially over the past few years. However, in clinical practice, there are no specific criteria as to whether a delay of at least one menstrual cycle is required for an FET after a failed fresh ET or a freeze-all cycle.

Objective

Through the effects on live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and pregnancy loss rate (PLR), to determine whether FET requires a delay of at least one menstrual cycle after fresh ET failure or a freeze-all cycle.

Methods

The search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases for terms related to FET timing as of April 2023. There are no restrictions on the year of publication or follow-up time. Women aged 20 to 46 with any indication for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment are eligible for inclusion. Oocyte donation studies are excluded. Except for the case report, study protocol, and abstract, all original studies are included.

Results

In 4,124 search results, 19 studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis includes studies on the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of reported live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and pregnancy loss rate (PLR), 17 studies were retrospective cohort study, and 2 studies were randomized controlled trial, a total of 6,917 immediate FET cycles and 16,105 delayed FET cycles were involved. In this meta-analysis, the combined OR of LBR was [OR = 1.09, 95% CI (0.93–1.28)], the combined OR of CPR was [OR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.92–1.20)], and the combined OR of PLR was (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.75–1.22). There was no statistical significance between the two groups.

Conclusion

Overall, delaying FET by at least one menstrual cycle has no advantage in LBR, CPR, or PLR. So, flexible scheduling of FETs is available to both doctors and patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42020161648.

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.

Effect of interval between oocyte retrieval and resuscitation embryo transfer on pregnancy outcomes

Objectives

Resuscitation transfer of embryos after elective cryopreservation has been widely applied in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) therapy for human infertility or sterility owing to higher embryo implantation rates. This method separates oocyte retrieval from embryo transfer. The optimal time for frozen embryo transfer (FET) remains unknown. Therefore, this study mainly compares the advantages and disadvantages of delayed FET and immediate FET through retrospective analysis.

Methods

We analyzed real world data of patients who underwent resuscitation transplantation between October 2019 and July 2021 at the Reproductive Center of Chengdu Jinjiang Hospital for Women's and Children's Health. Propensity score matching was applied to control potential confounding factors. A total of 5,549 patients who received at least one FET were analyzed. Patients undergoing transplantation within 60 days of oocyte retrieval were included in the immediate FET group (n = 1,265) and those undergoing transplantation > 60 days after retrieval were included in the delayed FET group (n = 4,284).

Results

Live birth rates between the two groups were comparable (45.25% vs. 45.76%, p = 0.757). Moreover, no difference was observed in the rates of biochemical pregnancy (64.50% vs. 66.80%), clinical pregnancy (55.24% vs. 56.83%), ectopic pregnancy (1.47% vs. 1.39%), early miscarriage (14.41% vs. 16.20%), late miscarriage (2.21% vs. 2.09%), singleton premature delivery (16.67% vs. 18.29%), and neonatal deformity (1.97% vs. 1.80%). After stratifying the patients based on the type of embryo transferred, number of embryos transferred, FET protocol, and good prognosis criteria, live birth rates remained comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Pregnancy outcomes were comparable between the immediate and delayed FET groups.

Immediate versus postponed frozen embryo transfer after IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In Europe, the number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles is steadily increasing, now accounting for more than 190 000 cycles per year. It is standard clinical practice to postpone FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or after a freeze-all cycle. The purpose of this practice is to minimise the possible residual negative effect of ovarian stimulation on the resumption of a normal ovulatory cycle and receptivity of the endometrium. Although elective deferral of FET may unnecessarily delay time to pregnancy, immediate FET may be inefficient in a clinical setting, following an increased risk of irregular ovulatory cycles and the presence of functional cysts, increasing the risk of cycle cancellation.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review explores the impact of timing of FET in the first cycle (immediate FET) versus the second or subsequent cycle (postponed FET) following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle on live birth rate (LBR). Secondary endpoints were implantation, pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) as well as miscarriage rate (MR).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases for MeSH and Emtree terms, as well as text words related to timing of FET, up to March 2020, in English language. There were no limitations regarding year of publication or duration of follow-up. Inclusion criteria were subfertile women aged 18-46 years with any indication for treatment with IVF/ICSI. Studies on oocyte donation were excluded. All original studies were included, except for case reports, study protocols and abstracts only. Covidence, a Cochrane-tool, was used for sorting and screening of literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Robins-I tool and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

OUTCOMES

Out of 4124 search results, 15 studies were included in the review. Studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for LBR, CPR and MR were included in meta-analyses. All studies (n = 15) were retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 6,304 immediate FET cycles and 13,851 postponed FET cycles including 8,019 matched controls. Twelve studies of very low to moderate quality reported no difference in LBR with immediate versus postponed FET. Two studies of moderate quality reported a statistically significant increase in LBR with immediate FET and one small study of very low quality reported better LBR with postponed FET. Trends in rates of secondary outcomes followed trends in LBR regarding timing of FET. The meta-analyses showed a significant advantage of immediate FET (n =2,076) compared to postponed FET (n =3,833), with a pooled aOR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.44) for LBR and a pooled aOR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.07-1.39) for CPR.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The results of this review indicate a slightly higher LBR and CPR in immediate versus postponed FET. Thus, the standard clinical practice of postponing FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle may not be best clinical practice. However, as only retrospective cohort studies were assessed, the presence of selection bias is apparent, and the quality of evidence thus seems low. Randomised controlled trials including data on cancellation rates and reasons for cancellation are highly needed to provide high-grade evidence regarding clinical practice and patient counselling.