Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6565fbc58-7b6x4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-12T22:18:06.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 25 - Elective Freeze-All Embryos Policy

from Section 5 - Alternatives to Ovarian Hyperstimulation and Delayed Transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2022

By
Mehmet Cihat Unlu  and
Ahmet Yigit Cakiroglu
Edited by
Mohamed Aboulghar  and
Botros Rizk
Mohamed Aboulghar
Affiliation:
University of Cairo IVF Centre
Botros Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Get access

Summary

Allowing infertile couples to fulfill their longings of having children, assisted reproductive techniques (ART) have progressed rapidly day by day since 1978, the time when they were first introduced. Advances and improvements in the existing techniques and interventions in medicine (ovulation induction, embryo culture techniques and the selection criteria, culture media, and advanced techniques for embryo manipulation) lead the achievements in this area to progress further every day.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Ovarian Stimulation , pp. 255 - 264
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Fatemi, HM, Garcia-Velasco, J. Avoiding ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger. Fertil Steril 2015;103:870–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basile, N, Garcia-Velasco, JA. The state of “freeze-for-all” in human ARTs. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:1543–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, A, Kung, A, Mounts, E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2017;107:723–730.Google Scholar
Sparks, AE. Human embryo cryopreservation-methods, timing, and other considerations for optimizing an embryo cryopreservation program. Semin Reprod Med 2015;33:128–144.Google ScholarPubMed
Weinerman, R, Mainigi, M. Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale. Fertil Steril 2014;102:10–18.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 2011;96:344–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, WR, Novotny, DB, Fritz, MA, et al. Effect of exogenous gonadotropins on endometrial maturation in oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 1999;71:109–114.Google Scholar
Ubaldi, F, Bourgain, C, Tournaye, H, et al. Endometrial evaluation by aspiration biopsy on the day of oocyte retrieval in the embryo transfer cycles in patients with serum progesterone rise during the follicular phase. Fertil Steril 1997;67:521–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cha, J, Sun, X, Dey, SK. Mechanisms of implantation: strategies for successful pregnancy. Nat Med 2012;18:1754–1767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horcajadas, JA, Mínguez, P, Dopazo, J, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation induces a functional genomic delay of the endometrium with potential clinical implications. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:4500–4510.Google Scholar
Liu, Y, Lee, KF, Ng, EH, Yeung, WS, Ho, PC. Gene expression profiling of human peri-implantation endometria between natural and stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril 2008;90:2152–2164.Google Scholar
Liu, Y, Kodithuwakku, SP, Ng, PY, et al. Excessive ovarian stimulation up-regulates the Wnt-signaling molecule DKK1 in human endometrium and may affect implantation: an in vitro co-culture study. Hum Reprod 2010;25:479–490.Google Scholar
de Waal, E, Vrooman, LA, Fischer, E, et al. The cumulative effect of assisted reproduction procedures on placental development and epigenetic perturbations in a mouse model. Hum Mol Genet 2015;24:6975–6985.Google Scholar
Denomme, MM, Mann, MR. Genomic imprints as a model for the analysis of epigenetic stability during assisted reproductive technologies. Reproduction 2012;144:393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Market-Velker, BA, Zhang, L, Magri, LS, Bonvissuto, AC, Mann, MR. Dual effects of superovulation: loss of maternal and paternal imprinted methylation in a dose-dependent manner. Hum Mol Genet 2010;19:36–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trounson, A, Mohr, L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature 1983;305:707–709.Google Scholar
Yu, L, Jia, C, Lan, Y, et al. Analysis of embryo intactness and developmental potential following slow freezing and vitrification. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2017;63:285–293.Google Scholar
Cobo, A, de los Santos, MJ, Castellò, D, et al. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1138–1146.Google Scholar
Devine, K, Connell, MT, Richter, KS, et al. Single vitrified blastocyst transfer maximizes liveborn children per embryo while minimizing preterm birth. Fertil Steril 2015;103:1454–1460.Google Scholar
Zech, J, Brandao, A, Zech, M, et al. Elective frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in women at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Reprod Biol 2018;18:46–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itskovitz, J, Boldes, R, Levron, J, et al. Induction of preovulatory luteinizing hormone surge and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Fertil Steril 1991;56:213–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albano, C, Smitz, J, Camus, M, et al. Comparison of different doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cetrorelix during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 1997;67:917–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engmann, L, Benadiva, C, Humaidan, P. GnRH agonist trigger for the induction of oocyte maturation in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2016;32:274–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Inany, HG, Youssef, MA, Ayeleke, RO, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD001750.Google Scholar
European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM); European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE); Kupka, MS, D’Hooghe, T, Ferraretti, AP, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2016;31:233–248.Google Scholar
Yen, SS, Llerena, O, Little, B, Pearson, OH. Disappearance rates of endogenous luteinizing hormone and chorionic gonadotropin in man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1968;28:1763–1767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fatemi, HM, Popovic-Todorovic, B, Humaidan, P, et al. Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome after gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger and “freeze-all” approach in GnRH antagonist protocol. Fertil Steril 2014;101:1008-1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ling, LP, Phoon, JW, Lau, MS, et al. GnRH agonist trigger and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: relook at ‘freeze-all strategy’ Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29:392–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venetis, CA, Kolibianakis, EM, Papanikolaou, E, et al. Is progesterone elevation on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration associated with the probability of pregnancy in in vitro fertilization? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2007;13:343–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fatemi, HM, Van Vaerenbergh, I. Significance of premature progesterone rise in IVF. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015;27:242–248.Google Scholar
Handyside, AH. 24-chromosome copy number analysis: a comparison of available technologies. Fertil Steril 2013;100:595–602.Google Scholar
Sermon, K, Capalbo, A, Cohen, J, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod 2016;22:845–857.Google Scholar
Kalem, Z, Kalem, MN, Gürgan, T. Methods for endometrial preparation in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2016;17:168–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, KA, Brindle, E, Miller, RC, et al. Ovulation detection methods for urinary hormones: precision, daily and intermittent sampling and a combined hierarchical method. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1442–1452.Google Scholar
Andersen, AG, Als-Nielsen, B, Hornnes, PJ, Franch Andersen, L. Time interval from human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) injection to follicular rupture. Hum Reprod 1995;10:3202–3205.Google Scholar
Al-Azemi, M, Kyrou, D, Kolibianakis, EM, et al. Elevated progesterone during ovarian stimulation for IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:381–388.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Kyrou, D, Bourgain, C, et al. Cryopreserved-thawed human embryo transfer: spontaneous natural cycle is superior to human chorionic gonadotropin-induced natural cycle. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2054–2058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weissman, A, Horowitz, E, Ravhon, A, et al. Spontaneous ovulation versus HCG triggering for timing natural-cycle frozen–thawed embryo transfer: a randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;23:484–489.Google Scholar
Saito, K, Kuwahara, A, Ishikawa, T, et al. Endometrial preparation methods for frozen-thawed embryo transfer are associated with altered risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placenta accreta, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Hum Reprod 2019;34(8):1567–1575.Google Scholar
El-Toukhy, T, Coomarasamy, A, Khairy, M, et al. The relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of medicated frozen embryo replacement cycles. Fertil Steril 2008;89:832–839.Google Scholar
Chen, ZJ, Shi, Y, Sun, Y, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2016;375:523–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, Y, Sun, Y, Hao, C, et al. Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. N Engl J Med 2018;378:126–136.Google Scholar
Vuong, LN, Dang, VQ, Ho, TM, et al. IVF transfer of fresh or frozen embryos in women without polycystic ovaries. N Engl J Med 2018;378:137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X, Ma, C, Wu, Z, et al. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles have a lower incidence of ectopic pregnancy compared with fresh embryo transfer cycles. Reprod Sci 2018;25:1431–1435.Google Scholar
Xiao, S, Mo, M, Hu, X, et al. Study on the incidence and influences on heterotopic pregnancy from embryo transfer of fresh cycles and frozen-thawed cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018;35:677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spijkers, S, Lens, JW, Schats, R, Lambalk, CB. Fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer compared to natural conception: differences in perinatal outcome. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017;82:538–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maheshwari, A, Pandey, S, Amalraj Raja, E, et al. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update 2018;24:35–58.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Raja, EA, Bhattacharya, S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority anonymized dataset. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1703–1708.Google Scholar
Ishihara, O, Araki, R, Kuwahara, A, et al. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril 2014;101:128–133.Google Scholar
Gu, F, Li, S, Zheng, L, et al. Perinatal outcomes of singletons following vitrification versus slow-freezing of embryos: a multicenter cohort study using propensity score analysis. Hum Reprod 2019;34(9):1788–1798.Google Scholar
Ginström Ernstad, E, Spangmose, AL, Opdahl, S, et al. Perinatal and maternal outcome after vitrification of blastocysts: a Nordic study in singletons from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod 2019;34(11):2282–2289.Google ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×