Transfer of fresh or frozen embryos: a randomised controlled trial

Embryo transfer impact: a comprehensive national cohort analysis comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes across varied embryo stages in fresh and frozen transfers

Introduction

The utilization of frozen embryo transfer not only enhances reproductive outcomes by elevating the likelihood of live birth and clinical pregnancy but also improves safety by mitigating the risks associated with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple pregnancies. There has been an increasing debate in recent years regarding the advisability of making elective frozen embryo transfer the standard practice. Our study aims to determine the optimal choice between fresh and frozen embryo transfer, as well as whether the transfer should occur at the cleavage or blastocyst stage.

Method

In this retrospective cohort study conducted in Taiwan, data from the national assisted reproductive technology (ART) database spanning from January 1st, 2013, to December 31st, 2017, were analyzed. The study included 51,762 eligible female participants who underwent ART and embryo transfer. Pregnancy outcomes, maternal complications, and singleton neonatal outcomes were evaluated using the National Health Insurance Database from January 1st, 2013, to December 31st, 2018. Cases were categorized into groups based on whether they underwent fresh or frozen embryo transfers, with further subdivision into cleavage stage and blastocyst stage transfers. Exposure variables encompassed clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, OHSS, pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus (DM), placenta previa, placental abruption, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), gestational age, newborn body weight, and route of delivery.

Results

Frozen blastocyst transfers showed higher rates of clinical pregnancy (CPR) and live births (LBR) compared to fresh blastocyst transfers. Conversely, frozen cleavage stage transfers demonstrated lower rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth compared to fresh cleavage stage transfers. Frozen embryo transfers were associated with reduced risks of OHSS but were linked to a higher risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension compared to fresh embryo transfers. Additionally, frozen embryo transfers were associated with a higher incidence of large for gestational age infants and a lower incidence of small for gestational age infants.

Conclusion

The freeze-all strategy may not be suitable for universal application. When embryos can develop to the blastocyst stage, FET is a favorable choice, but embryos can only develop to the cleavage stage, fresh embryo transfer becomes a more reasonable option.

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.

Assisted Reproductive Technology in the Presence of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Current Evidence and Knowledge Gaps

OBJECTIVE

In this narrative review, we discuss the current evidence as well as the knowledge gaps concerning assisted reproductive technology (ART) indications, protocols, and results in the presence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed for English-language publications in the last decade in databases such as PubMed, Medline, the Web of Sciences, Embase, and Scopus.

RESULTS

We found evidence that ovarian steroidogenesis and folliculogenesis are deeply altered by PCOS; however, the oocyte quality and pregnancy rates after ART are not affected. Patients with PCOS are more sensitive to the action of exogenous gonadotropins and more likely to develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. This risk can be mitigated by the adoption of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols for pituitary blockade and ovarian stimulation, along with frozen embryo transfer, without compromising the odds of achieving a live birth. Pregnancy complications, such as miscarriage, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and very preterm birth, are more frequent in the presence of PCOS, requiring more intense prenatal care. It remains uncertain whether weight reduction or insulin sensitizers used before ART are beneficial for the treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Although PCOS is not a drawback for ART treatments, the patients need special care to avoid complications. More in-depth studies are needed to uncover the mechanisms of follicular growth, gamete maturation, and endometrial differentiation during ART procedures in the presence of PCOS.

Clinical outcomes after fresh versus frozen embryo transfer in women with advanced reproductive age undergoing in vitro fertilization: a propensity score-matched cohort study

This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare clinical outcomes following fresh or frozen embryo transfer (FET) in women with advanced reproductive age (ARA). Women aged 35-45 years who underwent their first autologous fresh or frozen cleavage stage embryo transfer cycle in the Centre for Assisted Reproduction of Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020 were included. The primary outcome was live birth after the first embryo transfer of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Multiple covariates were used for propensity score matching (PSM) and generalized estimating equations were performed to examine the independent association between FET and live birth. Of the total 1453 patients, 327 patients had FET and 1126 patients had fresh ET. After the PSM procedure, 274 patients were included in each group. The live birth rate was 24.8% in the FET group and 25.2% in the fresh ET group (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.67-1.44, P = 0.92). Other pregnancy, perinatal and neonatal outcomes were all comparable between the two groups. This study showed that FET did not improve live birth and other clinical outcomes as compared with fresh embryo transfer in women with ARA who underwent their first IVF cycle.

Construction of the machine learning-based live birth prediction models for the first in vitro fertilization pregnant women

BACKGROUND

This study was to conduct prediction models based on parameters before and after the first cycle, respectively, to predict live births in women who received fresh or frozen in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for the first time.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study population consisted of 1,857 women undergoing the IVF cycle from 2019 to 2021 at Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital. The data between 2019 and 2020 were completely randomly divided into a training set and a validation set (8:2). The data from 2021 was used as the testing set, and the bootstrap validation was carried out by extracting 30% of the data for 200 times on the total data set. In the training set, variables are divided into those before the first cycle and after the first cycle. Then, predictive factors before the first cycle and after the first cycle were screened. Based on the predictive factors, four supervised machine learning algorithms were respectively considered to build the predictive models: logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LGBM). The performances of the prediction models were evaluated by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.

RESULTS

Totally, 851 women (45.83%) had a live birth. The LGBM model showed a robust performance in predicting live birth before the first cycle, with AUC being 0.678 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.651 to 0.706] in the training set, 0.612 (95% CI: 0.553 to 0.670) in the validation set, 0.634 (95% CI: 0.511 to 0.758) in the testing set, and 0.670 (95% CI: 0.626 to 0.715) in the bootstrap validation. The AUC value in the training set, validation set, testing set, and bootstrap of LGBM to predict live birth after the first cycle was 0.841 (95% CI: 0.821 to 0.861), 0.816 (95% CI: 0.773 to 0.859), 0.835 (95% CI: 0.743 to 0.926), and 0.839 (95% CI: 0.806 to 0.871), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The LGBM model based on the predictive factors before and after the first cycle for live birth in women showed a good predictive performance. Therefore, it may assist fertility specialists and patients to adjust the appropriate treatment strategy.

Does PGT-A affect cumulative live birth rate?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Preimplantation genetic testing for the purpose of aneuploidy screening (PGT-A) has increased in use over the last decade.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whether PGT-A benefits all of the patients that choose to employ it has been a concern, as recent studies have highlighted a potential decrease in cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) for younger patients undergoing embryo transfer. However, there are limitations to many of these studies and the intended benefit of PGT-A, which is to aid as a selection tool, thus increasing the live birth rate per transfer, must not be ignored.

SUMMARY

PGT-A was never intended to increase CLBR. The purpose of PGT-A is to maximize the chance at live birth per transfer while minimizing the risk of clinical miscarriage, ongoing aneuploid pregnancy and futile transfers. However, if it harms CLBR in the process that has to be taken into consideration. This review will discuss PGT-A in terms of its benefits, risks, and how it has been shown to affect the cumulative live birth rate within in-vitro fertilization cycles.

Comparison of perinatal outcomes and pregnancy complications between fresh embryo transfer and frozen embryo transfer in singleton pregnant women

OBJECTIVES

To compare perinatal outcomes and the incidence of pregnancy complications between fresh embryo transfer and frozen embryo transfer in singleton pregnant women.

METHODS

The clinical data of 3161 in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles conducted in Center for Reproductive Medicine of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from October 2015 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, among which 1009 cases were fresh embryo transfer (fresh embryo group) and 2152 cases were frozen embryo transfer (frozen embryo group). The baseline characteristics were compared between two groups, and logistic regression was used to analyze the effect of fresh embryo transfer and frozen embryo transfer on pregnancy outcome and complications.

RESULTS

Compared with the fresh embryo group, the frozen embryo group had an increased gestational age (P<0.01), increased birth weight (P<0.01), higher cesarean section rate (65.1% vs. 50.7%, AOR=1.791, 95%CI: 1.421-2.256, P<0.01), higher risk of large for gestational age infant (12.7% vs. 9.4%, AOR=1.487, 95%CI: 1.072-2.064, P<0.05) and macrosomia (5.4% vs. 3.2%, AOR=2.126, 95%CI: 1.262-3.582, P<0.01). The incidences of early abortion (18.5% vs. 16.2%, AOR=1.377, 95%CI: 1.099-1.725, P<0.01) and gestational hypertension (3.1% vs. 1.9%, AOR=1.862, 95%CI: 1.055-3.285, P<0.05) in the frozen embryo group were significantly higher than those in the fresh embryo group. Stratified analyses by stage of embryo transfer showed that during blastocyst transfer, the gestational weeks of delivery, birth weight and risk of cesarean section in frozen embryo group were significantly higher than those in fresh embryo group. During cleavage stage embryo transfer, frozen embryo transfer was associated with a higher risk of cesarean section, macrosomia, miscarriage and early miscarriage, and the birth weight of newborns was also significantly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with fresh embryo transfer, frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher risk of abortion, early abortion, large for gestational age infant, macrosomia, cesarean section, and pregnancy induced hypertension. The birth weight of newborns after frozen embryo transfer is also significantly increased.

Fresh vs. frozen embryo transfer: new approach to minimize the limitations of using national surveillance data for clinical research

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefit of frozen vs. fresh elective single embryo transfer using traditional and novel methods of controlling for confounding.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 44,750 women aged 20-35 years undergoing their first lifetime oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer in 2016-2017, who had ≥4 embryos cryopreserved.

INTERVENTION(S)

Fresh elective single embryo transfer and frozen elective single embryo transfer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was a singleton live birth. Secondary outcomes included rates of total live birth (singleton plus multiple gestations), twin live birth, clinical intrauterine gestation, total pregnancy loss, biochemical pregnancy, and ectopic pregnancy. Outcomes for infants included gestational age at delivery, birth weight, and being small for gestational age.

RESULT(S)

The eligibility criteria were met by 6,324 fresh and 2,318 frozen cycles. Patients undergoing fresh and frozen transfer had comparable mean age (30.69 [standard deviation {SD} 0.08] years vs. 31.06 [SD 0.08] years) and body mass index (24.76 [SD 0.20] vs. 25.65 [SD 0.15]); however, women in the frozen cohort created more embryos (8.1 [SD 0.12] vs. 6.8 [SD 0.08]). Singleton live birth rates in the fresh vs. frozen groups were 51.4% vs. 48.8% (risk ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.10). After adjustment with a log-linear regression model and propensity score analysis, the difference in singleton live birth rates remained nonsignificant (adjusted risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.14 and 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08, respectively). A novel dynamical model confirmed inherent fertility (probability of ever achieving a pregnancy) was balanced between groups (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI 0.78-1.95]). The per-cycle probability of singleton live birth was not different between groups (odds ratio 1.11 [95% CI 0.94-1.3]).

CONCLUSION(S)

In this retrospective cohort study of fresh vs. frozen elective single embryo transfer, there was no statistically significant difference in singleton live birth rate after adjustment using log-linear models and propensity score analysis. The successful application of a novel dynamical model, which incorporates multiple assisted reproductive technology cycles from the same woman as a surrogate for inherent fertility, offers a novel and complementary perspective for assessing interventions using national surveillance data.

Higher miscarriage rate in subfertile women with endometriosis receiving unbiopsied frozen-warmed single blastocyst transfers

Background: Assisted reproductive technology treatment is recommended to overcome endometriosis-associated infertility but current evidence is controversial. Endometriosis is associated with lower antral follicle count (AFC) and oocyte yield but similar clinical outcomes compared to controls. Unaffected ovarian stimulation response and embryological outcomes but lower clinical pregnancy and live birth rates and higher miscarriage rates have been reported, implying direct impact on endometrial receptivity. With evidence emerging on the benefit of frozen-warmed and blastocyst stage transfer, we investigated ART outcomes in endometriosis using homogeneous case-control groups. Methods: This is a retrospective observational case-control study including n = 66 frozen-warmed unbiopsied single blastocyst transfers of patients with endometriosis and n = 96 of women exhibiting idiopathic sterility. All frozen-warmed transfers followed artificial endometrial preparation. Results: In control women, the mean number of oocytes recovered at oocyte pick up was higher compared to women with endometriosis (15.3 ± 7.1 vs. 12.7 ± 5.2, p = 0.025) but oocyte maturation index (mature oocytes/total oocytes at oocyte pick up) was significantly higher for endometriosis (48.2% vs. 34.0%, p = 0.005). The same was shown for the subgroup of 44 endometriosis patients after endometrioma surgery when compared with controls (49.1% vs. 34.0%, p = 0.014). Clinical pregnancy rate was not higher in endometriosis but was close to significance (47.0% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.059) while live birth rate was comparable (27.3% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.746). Miscarriage rate was higher in the endometriosis group (19.7% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.018). A significantly higher AFC was observed in the control group in comparison with the endometriosis group (16.3 ± 7.6 vs. 13.4 ± 7.0, p = 0.014). Live birth rate did not differ when comparing all endometriosis cases (p = 0.746), ASRM Stage I/II and Stage III/IV (p = 0.348 and p = 0.888) with the control group but the overall pregnancy rate was higher in ASRM Stage I/II (p = 0.034) and miscarriage rate was higher in ASRM Stage III/IV (p = 0.030) versus control. Conclusion: Blastocyst transfers in women with endometriosis originate from cycles with lower AFC but higher share of mature oocytes than in control women, suggesting that endometriosis might impair ovarian reserve but not stimulation response. A higher miscarriage rate, independent of blastocyst quality may be attributed to an impact of endometriosis on the endometrium beyond the timing of implantation.

Progesterone: The Key Factor of the Beginning of Life

Progesterone is the ovarian steroid produced by the granulosa cells of follicles after the LH peak at mid-cycle. Its role is to sustain embryo endometrial implantation and ongoing pregnancy. Other biological effects of progesterone may exert a protective function in supporting pregnancy up to birth. Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is the standard of care for assisted reproductive technology. Progesterone vaginal administration is currently the most widely used treatment for LPS. Physicians and patients have been reluctant to change an administration route that has proven to be effective. However, some questions remain open, namely the need for LPS in fresh and frozen embryo transfer, the route of administration, the optimal duration of LPS, dosage, and the benefit of combination therapies. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the uterine and extra-uterine effects of progesterone that may play a role in embryo implantation and pregnancy, and to discuss the advantages of the use of progesterone for LPS in the context of Good Medical Practice.

Impact of different endometrial preparation protocols before frozen embryo transfer on pregnancy outcomes: a review

The use of frozen embryo transfer cycles has exponentially increased in the last few years. Optimization of endometrial preparation protocols before frozen embryo transfer is mandatory to further improve pregnancy outcomes. This review will focus on the existing literature with regard to the different available endometrial preparation protocols and their impact on pregnancy outcomes. More specifically, we will focus on programmed, natural, and stimulated frozen embryo transfer cycles. The studies performed on this topic are generally of low quality, and only a few well-performed randomized controlled trials have been published. To date, no strong evidence is available to support the use of 1 preparation method over another in terms of pregnancy outcomes. However, robust data have shown a clearly protective effect of natural frozen embryo transfer cycles against long-term obstetric complications, mainly hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and large for gestational age infants. The introduction of individualized luteal phase support in different endometrial preparation protocols is actually gaining a lot of attention and requires further investigation.

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.

Individual participant data meta-analysis of trials comparing frozen versus fresh embryo transfer strategy (INFORM): a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy have shown conflicting results. A freeze-all or a fresh transfer policy may be preferable for some couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), but it is unclear which couples would benefit most from each policy, how and under which protocols. Therefore, we plan a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of RCTs comparing a freeze-all and a fresh transfer policy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) from their inception to present to identify eligible RCTs. We will also check reference lists of relevant papers. The search was performed on 23 September 2020 and will be updated. We will include RCTs comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy in couples undergoing IVF. The primary outcome will be live birth resulting from the first embryo transfer. All outcomes listed in the core outcome set for infertility research will be reported. We will invite the lead investigators of eligible trials to join the Individual participant data meta-analysis of trials comparing frozen versus fresh embryo transfer strategy (INFORM) collaboration and share the deidentified individual participant data (IPD) of their trials. We will harmonise the IPD and perform a two-stage meta-analysis and examine treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study ethics have been granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 30391). The findings will be disseminated via presentations at international conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021296566.

Greater estimated fetal weight and birth weight in IVF/ICSI pregnancy after frozen-thawed vs fresh blastocyst transfer: prospective cohort study with novel unified modeling methodology

OBJECTIVE

To compare, using a unified approach, standardized estimated fetal weight (EFW) trajectories from the second trimester to birth and birth-weight (BW) measurements in in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) pregnancies obtained after frozen-thawed vs fresh blastocyst transfer (BT).

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective longitudinal cohort study performed at the Fetal Medicine and Obstetric Departments of San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, from January 2016 to December 2020. Eligible for inclusion were singleton viable gestations conceived by autologous IVF/ICSI conception after fresh or frozen-thawed BT that underwent standard fetal biometry assessment at 19-41 weeks and had BW measurements available. All ultrasound assessments were performed by operators blinded to the employment of cryopreservation. Patients with twin gestation, significant pregestational disease, miscarriage, major fetal abnormalities and use of other types of medically assisted reproduction techniques were excluded. EFW and BW Z-scores and their trajectories were analyzed using general linear models (GLM) and logistic regression with a unified modeling methodology based on the Fetal Medicine Foundation fetal and neonatal population weight charts, adjusting for major confounders. Differences between prenatal EFW and postnatal BW centiles in the two groups were assessed and compared using contingency tables, χ² test and conversion of prenatal to postnatal centiles.

RESULTS

A total of 631 IVF/ICSI pregnancies were considered, comprising 263 conceived following fresh BT and 368 after frozen-thawed BT. A total of 1795 EFW observations were available (n = 715 in fresh BT group and n = 1080 in frozen-thawed BT group; median of three observations per patient). EFW and BW < 10^th centile were significantly more frequent in the fresh than in the frozen-thawed BT group (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). EFW and BW > 90^th centile were significantly more frequent in the frozen-thawed vs fresh BT group (P = 0.034 and P = 0.002, respectively). GLM showed significantly decreasing EFW Z-scores with advancing gestational age (GA) in both groups. The effect of GA was assumed to be equal in the two study groups, as no significant interaction effect was found. Smoothed mean EFW Z-scores from 19 weeks of gestation to term and smoothed mean BW Z-scores were both significantly higher in the frozen-thawed compared with the fresh BT group (EFW Z-score, 0.70 ± 1.29 vs 0.28 ± 1.43; P < 0.001; BW Z-score, 0.04 ± 1.08 vs -0.31 ± 1.28; P < 0.001). Mean smoothed EFW Z-score values in the frozen-thawed vs fresh BT groups were 1.01 ± 0.12 vs 0.60 ± 0.08 at 19-27 weeks, 0.36 ± 0.07 vs -0.06 ± 0.04 at 28-35 weeks and -0.66 ± 0.01 vs -0.88 ± 0.02 at 36-41 weeks. Mean smoothed BW Z-score values in the frozen-thawed vs fresh BT groups were -0.80 ± 0.14 vs -1.20 ± 0.10 at 28-35 weeks and 0.22 ± 0.16 vs -0.24 ± 0.14 at 36-41 weeks. Assessment of EFW and BW concordance showed a significantly greater rate of postnatal confirmation of prenatally predicted small-for-gestational age (SGA) < 10^th centile in the fresh compared with the frozen-thawed BT group (P < 0.001), whereas the rate of postnatal confirmation of large-for-gestational age (LGA) > 90^th centile was significantly higher in the frozen-thawed vs the fresh BT group (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the smoothed rate of EFW < 3^rd centile was about 6-fold higher in the fresh vs frozen-thawed BT group (P < 0.001), whereas the smoothed rates of EFW 90^th -97^th centile and > 97^th centile were nearly double in the frozen-thawed compared with the fresh BT group (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Robust novel unified prenatal-postnatal modeling in IVF/ICSI pregnancies after frozen-thawed or fresh BT from 19 weeks of gestation to birth showed non-divergent growth trajectories, with higher EFW and BW Z-scores in the frozen-thawed vs fresh BT group. The mean EFW Z-scores in both IVF/ICSI groups were greater than those expected for natural conceptions, being highest in the midtrimester and decreasing with advancing gestation in both groups, becoming negative after 32 weeks in the fresh and after 35 weeks in the frozen-thawed BT group. Mean BW Z-scores were negative in both groups, with lower values in preterm fetuses, and increased with advancing gestation, becoming positive at term in the frozen-thawed BT group. IVF/ICSI conceptions from frozen-thawed as compared to fresh BT presented increased rate of LGA and reduced rate of SGA both prenatally and postnatally. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Comparison of perinatal outcomes after frozen or fresh embryo transfer: separate analyses of singleton, twin, and sibling live births from a linked national in vitro fertilization registry

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether perinatal outcomes following frozen vs. fresh embryo transfer (ET) differ within singletons, within sets of twins, and between siblings.

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic Medical School PATIENT(S): 200,075 live births in 151,561 women who underwent in vitro fertilization with frozen or fresh ET between 1992 and 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Gestational age at birth, birthweight, congenital anomaly, and healthy baby (≥37 weeks of gestation, birthweight 2,500-4,000 g, no congenital malformations).

RESULT(S)

There were 200,075 live births in 151,561 women including 132,679 singletons, 33,698 sets of twins, and 5,723 pairs of singleton siblings. In singletons, frozen ET was associated with a lower risk of very preterm birth (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73, 0.94), preterm birth (aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88, 0.97), low birthweight (<2,500 g) (aRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68, 0.77), small for gestational age (aRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62, 0.70) and congenital anomaly (aRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78, 0.94), but higher risk of high birthweight (>4,000 g) (aRR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.58, 1.72) and large for gestational age (aRR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.55, 1.70) in comparison with fresh ET. In twins, frozen ET was associated with lower risk of very preterm birth (aRR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73, 0.97), and low birthweight (aRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68, 0.77), but with a higher chance of a healthy baby (aRR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06, 1.16) compared to fresh ET. Singletons conceived following frozen ET had a lower risk of low birthweight (aRR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.74) and being small for gestational age (aRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.68) than a singleton sibling born after a fresh ET. Frozen ET also was associated with higher risk of high birthweight (aRR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.54, 2.24) and being large for gestational age (aRR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.50, 2.20), and also were less likely to be preterm (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67, 0.99).

CONCLUSION(S)

Our key finding is that singletons born following a frozen ET are less likely to be small for gestational age than a singleton sibling born following fresh ET but are more likely to be large for gestational age.

Should any use of artificial cycle regimen for frozen-thawed embryo transfer in women capable of ovulation be abandoned: yes, but what's next for FET cycle practice and research?

Over the past decade, the use of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles has increased substantially. The artificial ('programmed') cycle regimen, which suppresses ovulation, is widely used for that purpose, also in ovulatory women or women capable of ovulation, under the assumption of equivalent efficacy in terms of pregnancy achievement as compared to a natural cycle or modified natural cycle. The advantage of the artificial cycle is the easy alignment of the time point of thawing and transferring embryos with organizational necessities of the IVF laboratory, the treating doctors and the patient. However, recent data indicate that pregnancy establishment under absence of a corpus luteum as a consequence of anovulation may cause relevant maternal and fetal risks. Herein, we argue that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not needed to aid in the clinical decision for or against routine artificial cycle regimen use in ovulatory women. We also argue that RCTs are unlikely to answer the most burning questions of interest in that context, mostly because of lack of power and precision in detecting rare but decisive adverse outcomes (e.g. pre-eclampsia risk or long-term neonatal health outcomes). We pinpoint that, instead, large-scale observational data are better suited for that purpose. Eventually, we propose that the existing understanding and evidence is sufficient already to discourage the use of artificial cycle regimens for FET in ovulatory women or women capable of ovulation, as these may cause a strong deviation from physiology, thereby putting patient and fetus at avoidable health risk, without any apparent health benefit.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT

BACKGROUND

Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years.

INTERVENTIONS

If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control).

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores.

RESULTS

A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth.

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected.

CONCLUSION

When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice

Ethical considerations are central to all medicine though, likely, nowhere more essential than in the practice of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Through in vitro fertilization (IVF), this is the only field in medicine involved in creating human life. IVF has, indeed, so far led to close to 10 million births worldwide. Yet, relating to substantial changes in clinical practice of IVF, the medical literature has remained surprisingly quiet over the last two decades. Major changes especially since 2010, however, call for an updated commentary. Three key changes deserve special notice: Starting out as a strictly medical service, IVF in recent years, in efforts to expand female reproductive lifespans in a process given the term “planned” oocyte cryopreservation, increasingly became more socially motivated. The IVF field also increasingly underwent industrialization and commoditization by outside financial interests. Finally, at least partially driven by industrialization and commoditization, so-called add-ons, the term describing mostly unvalidated tests and procedures added to IVF since 2010, have been held responsible for worldwide declines in fresh, non-donor live birthrates after IVF, to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. We here, therefore, do not offer a review of bioethical considerations regarding IVF as a fertility treatment, but attempt to point out ethical issues that arose because of major recent changes in clinical IVF practice.

Early Spontaneous Abortion in Fresh- and Frozen-Embryo Transfers: An Analysis of Over 35,000 Transfer Cycles

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore the risk factors for early spontaneous abortion (ESA) in fresh- and frozen-embryo transfers.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study comprised a total of 35,076 patients, including 15,557 women in the fresh-embryo transfer group and 19,519 women in the frozen-embryo transfer group from January 2016 to December 2020. The primary outcome of this study was ESA, which we defined as the termination of embryonic development before 12 weeks of pregnancy (i.e., an early abortion after artificial multi-fetal pregnancy reduction was excluded).

RESULTS

In the 35,076 ART transfer cycles, the incidence of ESA was 5.77% (2023/35,076), and the incidence rates for ESA in fresh and frozen cycles were 4.93% (767 of 15,557) and 6.43% (1,256 of 19,519), respectively. Using a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, maternal age, body mass index (BMI), and number of embryos transferred were independent predictors for ESA. In addition, frozen-thawed transfer was a risk factor for ESA as compared with fresh transfer (OR = 1.207; 95% CI, 1.094-1.331; P = 0.000), blastocyst transfer was risk factor for ESA as compared with cleavage transfer (OR =1.373; 95% CI, 1.186-1.591; P = 0.000 in the total group; OR = 1.291; 95% CI, 1.111-1.499; P = 0.001 in the frozen-transfer group), and unexplained infertility was a protective factor for ESA only in the frozen group (OR = 0.746; 95% CI, 0.565-0.984; P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Maternal age, BMI, number of embryos transferred, and frozen-thawed transfer were independent risk factors for ESA in assisted reproductive technology treatment cycles.

Does the freeze-all strategy improve the cumulative live birth rate and the time to become pregnant in IVF cycles?

PURPOSE

The freeze-all strategy is widely used for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) prevention. Indeed, it increases live birth rates among high responders and prevents preterm birth and small for gestational age. Why should not we extend it to all?

METHODS

A retrospective and monocentric study was conducted between January 2008 and January 2018 comparing the cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) between patients having undergone FAS and a control group using fresh embryo transfer (FET) and having at least one frozen embryo available. Analyses were made for the entire cohort (population 1) and for different subgroups according to confounding factors selected by a logistic regression (population 3), and to the BELRAP (Belgian Register for Assisted Procreation) criteria (population 2).

RESULTS

2216 patients were divided into two groups: Freeze all (FA), 233 patients and control (C), 1983 patients. The CLBR was 50.2% vs 58.1% P = 0.021 for population 1 and 53.2% vs 63.3% P = 0.023 for population 2, including 124 cases and 1241 controls. The CLBR stayed in favour of the C group: 70.1% vs 55.9% P = 0.03 even when confounding variables were excluded (FA and C group, respectively, 109 and 770 patients). The median time to become pregnant was equally in favour of the C group with a median of 5 days against 61 days.

CONCLUSION

CLBR is significantly lower in the FA group compared to the C group with a longer time to become pregnant. Nevertheless, the CLBR in the FA group remains superior to that observed in previous studies.

Cumulative live birth rate after IVF: trend over time and the impact of blastocyst culture and vitrification

STUDY QUESTION

Has cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) improved over time and which factors are associated with such an improvement?

SUMMARY ANSWER

During an 11-year period, 2007–2017, CLBR per oocyte aspiration increased significantly, from 27.0% to 36.3%, in parallel with an increase in blastocyst transfer and cryopreservation by vitrification.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

While it has been shown that live birth rate (LBR) per embryo transfer (ET) is higher for fresh blastocyst than for fresh cleavage stage embryo transfer, CLBR per oocyte aspiration, including one fresh ET and all subsequent frozen embryo transfers (FET), does not seem to differ between the two culture strategies.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A national register study including all oocyte aspirations performed in Sweden from 2007 to 2017 (n = 124 700 complete IVF treatment cycles) was carried out. Oocyte donation cycles were excluded.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data were retrieved from the Swedish National Registry of Assisted Reproduction (Q-IVF) on all oocyte aspirations during the study period where autologous oocytes were used. CLBR was defined as the proportion of deliveries with at least one live birth per oocyte aspiration, including all fresh and/or frozen embryo transfers within 1 year, until one delivery with a live birth or until all embryos were used, whichever occurred first. The delivery of a singleton, twin, or other multiples was registered as one delivery. Cryopreservation of cleavage stage embryos was performed by slow freezing and of blastocyst by vitrification.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 124 700 oocyte aspirations were performed (in 61 313 women), with 65 304 aspirations in women <35 years and 59 396 in women ≥ 35 years, resulting in 38 403 deliveries with live born children. Overall, the CLBR per oocyte aspiration increased significantly during the study period, from 27.0% to 36.3% (odds ratio (OR) 1.039, 95% CI 1.035–1.043) and from 30.0% to 43.3% if at least one ET was performed (adjusted OR 1.055, 95% CI 1.050–1.059). The increase in CLBR was independent of maternal age, number of oocytes retrieved and number of previous IVF live births. The CLBR for women <35 and ≥35 years both increased significantly, following the same pattern. During the study period, a substantially increasing number of blastocyst transfers was performed, both in fresh and in FET cycles. Other important predicting factors for live birth, such as number of embryos transferred, could not explain the improvement. An increased single embryo transfer rate was observed with time.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The retrospective design implicates that other confounders of importance for CLBR cannot be ruled out. In addition, some FET cycles might be performed later than 1 year post oocyte aspiration for the last year (2017) and are, thus, not included in this study. In addition, no data on ‘dropouts’, i.e. patients that do not continue their treatment despite having cryopreserved embryos, are available, or if this drop-out rate has changed over time.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results suggest that blastocyst transfer, particularly when used in FET cycles and in combination with vitrification, is an important contributor to the improved live birth rates over time. This gives a possibility for a lower number of oocyte aspirations needed to achieve a live birth and a shortened time to live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The study was financed by grants from the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-70940) and by Hjalmar Svensson’s research foundation. None of the authors declares any conflict of interest.

Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments conventionally consist of a fresh embryo transfer, possibly followed by one or more cryopreserved embryo transfers in subsequent cycles. An alternative option is to freeze all suitable embryos and transfer cryopreserved embryos in subsequent cycles only, which is known as the 'freeze all' strategy. This is the first update of the Cochrane Review on this comparison.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the freeze all strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two registers of ongoing trials from inception until 23 September 2020 for relevant studies, checked references of publications found, and contacted study authors to obtain additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors (TZ and MZ) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. We included randomised controlled trials comparing a 'freeze all' strategy with a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy including a fresh embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were cumulative live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included effectiveness outcomes (including ongoing pregnancy rate and clinical pregnancy rate), time to pregnancy and obstetric, perinatal and neonatal outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies in the systematic review and eight studies with a total of 4712 women in the meta-analysis. The overall evidence was of moderate to low quality. We graded all the outcomes and downgraded due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and serious unexplained heterogeneity. Risk of bias was associated with unclear blinding of investigators for preliminary outcomes of the study during the interim analysis, unit of analysis error, and absence of adequate study termination rules. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below. There is probably little or no difference in cumulative live birth rate between the 'freeze all' strategy and the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; 8 RCTs, 4712 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a cumulative live birth rate of 58% following the conventional strategy, the cumulative live birth rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be between 57% and 63%. Women might develop less OHSS after the 'freeze all' strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.39; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs, 4478 women; low-quality evidence). These data suggest that for an OHSS rate of 3% following the conventional strategy, the rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be 1%. There is probably little or no difference between the two strategies in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19; I2 = 31%; 4 RCTs, 1245 women; moderate-quality evidence).  We could not analyse time to pregnancy; by design, time to pregnancy is shorter in the conventional strategy than in the 'freeze all' strategy when the cumulative live birth rate is comparable, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in cumulative miscarriage rate because the evidence is very low quality (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55; I2 = 55%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence) and cumulative multiple-pregnancy rate (Peto OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.25; I2 = 63%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence). The risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.25; I2 = 29%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence), having a large-for-gestational-age baby (Peto OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.55; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence) and a higher birth weight of the children born (mean difference (MD) 127 g, 95% CI 77.1 to 177.8; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, 1607 singletons; moderate-quality evidence) may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in the risk of having a small-for-gestational-age baby because the evidence is low quality (Peto OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I2 = 64%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-quality evidence showing that one strategy is probably not superior to the other in terms of cumulative live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate. The risk of OHSS may be decreased in the 'freeze all' strategy. Based on the results of the included studies, we could not analyse time to pregnancy. It is likely to be shorter using a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy with fresh embryo transfer in the case of similar cumulative live birth rate, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. The risk of maternal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, of having a large-for-gestational-age baby and a higher birth weight of the children born may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain if 'freeze all' strategy reduces the risk of miscarriage, multiple pregnancy rate or having a small-for-gestational-age baby compared to conventional IVF/ICSI.