Modified natural-cycle cryopreserved embryo transfer: is a washout period needed after a failed fresh cycle?

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 HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus for the management of hyper-responders in in vitro fertilization

PURPOSE

To provide agreed-upon guidelines on the management of a hyper-responsive patient undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS) METHODS: A literature search was performed regarding the management of hyper-response to OS for assisted reproductive technology. A scientific committee consisting of 4 experts discussed, amended, and selected the final statements. A priori, it was decided that consensus would be reached when ≥66% of the participants agreed, and ≤3 rounds would be used to obtain this consensus. A total of 28/31 experts responded (selected for global coverage), anonymous to each other.

RESULTS

A total of 26/28 statements reached consensus. The most relevant are summarized here. The target number of oocytes to be collected in a stimulation cycle for IVF in an anticipated hyper-responder is 15-19 (89.3% consensus). For a potential hyper-responder, it is preferable to achieve a hyper-response and freeze all than aim for a fresh transfer (71.4% consensus). GnRH agonists should be avoided for pituitary suppression in anticipated hyper-responders performing IVF (96.4% consensus). The preferred starting dose in the first IVF stimulation cycle of an anticipated hyper-responder of average weight is 150 IU/day (82.1% consensus). ICoasting in order to decrease the risk of OHSS should not be used (89.7% consensus). Metformin should be added before/during ovarian stimulation to anticipated hyper-responders only if the patient has PCOS and is insulin resistant (82.1% consensus). In the case of a hyper-response, a dopaminergic agent should be used only if hCG will be used as a trigger (including dual/double trigger) with or without a fresh transfer (67.9% consensus). After using a GnRH agonist trigger due to a perceived risk of OHSS, luteal phase rescue with hCG and an attempt of a fresh transfer is discouraged regardless of the number of oocytes collected (72.4% consensus). The choice of the FET protocol is not influenced by the fact that the patient is a hyper-responder (82.8% consensus). In the cases of freeze all due to OHSS risk, a FET cycle can be performed in the immediate first menstrual cycle (92.9% consensus).

CONCLUSION

These guidelines for the management of hyper-response can be useful for tailoring patient care and for harmonizing future research.

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.

Impact of prolonged one or more natural menstrual cycles on the outcomes of ovulation induction intrauterine artificial insemination pregnancy: a single-centre, retrospective study in China

OBJECTIVES

We determined if the time interval between two ovulation induction intrauterine artificial insemination (IUI) treatment cycles should be extended by one or more natural menstrual cycles in patients undergoing successive cycles of ovulation stimulation, and whether this affects clinical pregnancy rate (CPR).

DESIGN

This study was conducted on infertility patients treated under the ovulation induction programme IUI in a large reproductive centre in China. Study participants were assigned into continuous and discontinuous groups. Differences in baseline clinical pregnancy and abortion rates were compared between the groups. A multivariate logistic model was used to evaluate the effects of time interval on clinical pregnancy outcomes.

SETTING

Reproductive Centre of Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Lianyungang city.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was CPR, the secondary outcome measure was the abortion rate.

RESULTS

A total of 550 IUI treatment cycles involving 275 couples were included in this study. Differences in CPR and abortion rate between the groups were not significant (20.5% vs 21.9% and 27.8% vs 22.0%, p≥0.05). Stratified analyses based on infertility factors did not reveal any significant differences in pregnancy and abortion rates between the groups (p≥0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that increased endometrial thickness correlates with CPR (OR 1.205, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.384, p=0.008). Compared with primary infertility, secondary infertility significantly correlated with improved CPR (OR 2.637, 95% CI 1.313 to 5.298, p=0.006). The effects of time interval between the first two ovulation induction IUI treatment cycles on clinical pregnancy were not significant (OR 1.007, 95% CI 0.513 to 1.974, p=0.985).

CONCLUSIONS

Longer time intervals between the first two ovulation induction IUI treatment cycles did not significantly improve CPR. Therefore, in the absence of clear clinical indications, it may not be necessary to deliberately prolong the interval between two ovulation induction IUI treatment cycles.

It is not worth postponing frozen embryo transfers after oocyte pickup: A retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching

This study was to explore whether postponing frozen embryo transfers (FET) after oocyte pickup (OPU) improves clinical and neonatal outcomes. From May 2018 to Dec 2020, a total of 1109 patients underwent their first OPU cycles adopting a non-selective freeze-all policy were included in this retrospective cohort study. In the immediate group (n=219), patients underwent FET in the first menstrual cycle after OPU, and patients in the postponed group (n=890) waited for more than 1 menstrual cycle after OPU to perform FET. A propensity score matching (PSM) model was used to evaluate the clinical outcomes and neonatal outcomes between the two groups. There were 209 patients in the immediate group and 499 patients in the postponed one after PSM. Patients waited for a significantly shorter period for FET in the immediate group (30.74 ± 3.85 days) compared with the postponed group (80.39 ± 26.25 days, P<0.01). The clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) in the immediate group were 58.4% and 48.3%, respectively, which were comparable to those of the postponed one (58.1%, 49.7%, P > 0.05). No statistical significance was found in the average birth weight (3088.82 ± 565.35 g vs 3038.64 ± 625.78 g, P > 0.05) and height (49.08 ± 1.87 cm vs 49.30 ± 2.52 cm) of neonates between the two groups. The gender ratio, the incidence of macrosomia and low birth weight did not differ significantly between the two groups. In conclusion, postponing FET does not improve clinical and neonatal outcomes. If patients have no contraindications, FETs should be carried out immediately after OPU.

Adverse impact of elevated serum progesterone and luteinizing hormone levels on the hCG trigger day on clinical pregnancy outcomes of modified natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

The relationship between serum progesterone (P) and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels on the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger day and the clinical pregnancy outcomes in modified natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET) cycles are controversial.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of 788 mNC-FET cycles. A smooth fitting curve and threshold effect analysis was performed to identify the effect of serum P and LH levels measured on the hCG day on the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) of mNC-FET cycles.

RESULTS

The CPR and LBR decreased significantly when the LH level on the hCG day was greater than or equal to 32 IU/L. Further subgroup analysis showed that the CPR decreased significantly when the P level on the hCG day was equal to or greater than 1 ng/mL. When the P level was lower (< 1 ng/mL), the patients with an LH level greater than or equal to 32 IU/L had reduced CPR and LBR in mNC-FET cycles.

CONCLUSION

Applying the hCG trigger on a day with a higher P level (≥ 1 ng/mL) leads to a decreased CPR and LBR. hCG administration with a higher LH level (≥ 32 IU/L) also leads to a decreased CPR and LBR in mNC-FET cycles when the P level is less than 1 ng/mL.

Immediate versus postponed single blastocyst transfer in modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (mNC-FET): a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Today, it is widespread practice to postpone frozen embryo transfer (FET) in a modified natural cycle (mNC) for at least one menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval and failed fresh embryo transfer or freeze-all. The rationale behind this practice is the concern that suboptimal ovarian, endometrial or endocrinological conditions following ovarian stimulation may have a negative impact on endometrial receptivity and implantation. However, two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on retrospective data did not support this practice. As unnecessary delay in time to transfer and pregnancy should be avoided, the aim of this study is to investigate if immediate single blastocyst transfer in mNC-FET is non-inferior to standard postponed single blastocyst transfer in mNC-FET in terms of live birth rate.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Multicentre randomised controlled non-blinded trial including 464 normo-ovulatory women aged 18-40 years undergoing single blastocyst mNC-FET after a failed fresh or freeze-all cycle. Participants are randomised 1:1 to either FET in the first menstrual cycle following the stimulated cycle (immediate FET) or FET in the second or subsequent cycle following the stimulated cycle (postponed FET). The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial and primary analyses will be performed as intention to treat and per protocol.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (J-nr.: H-19086300). Data will be handled according to Danish law on personal data protection in accordance with the general data protection regulation. Participants will complete written consent forms regarding participation in the study and storage of blood samples in a biobank for future research. The study will be monitored by a Good Clinical Practice (GCP)-trained study nurse not otherwise involved in the study. The results of this study will be disseminated by publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04748874; Pre-results.

Immediate versus delayed frozen embryo transfer in women following a failed IVF-ET attempt: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal time at which to perform a frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) following a failed in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) attempt remains elusive to most reproductive experts. Physicians often delay the introduction of FET due to concerns related to potential residual effects of ovarian hyperstimulation which may interfere with the regular menstrual cycle. Moreover, given that most of the published studies on the topic are retrospective and have inconsistent findings, it is crucial to develop evidence-based randomized control guides for clinical practice. Therefore, this well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine whether it is necessary to delay FET for at least one menstrual cycle after the failure of fresh embryo transfer.

METHODS

Infertile women eligible for IVF-ET were invited to participate in this multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, parallel-group, unblinded, controlled trial at the academic fertility centers of four public hospitals in Chinese Mainland. Infertile women scheduled to receive their first FET cycle after a failed IVF-ET attempt were randomly assigned to either (a) the immediate FET group in which FET was performed in the first menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366) or (b) the delayed FET group in which FET was performed in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366). All FET cycles were performed during hormone replacement cycles for endometrial preparation. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy, defined as a detectable fetal heart beat beyond twelve weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were other pregnancy-related outcomes, maternal and neonatal complications. Analysis was performed by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles.

RESULTS

A total of 646 FETs were completed. The frequency of moderate to severe depression and high stress level prior to FET in delayed FET group were significantly higher than that in immediate FET group (10.6% vs 6.1%, p = 0.039; 30.3% vs 22.4%, p = 0.022, respectively). Immediate FET resulted in a higher frequency of clinical pregnancy than did delayed FET (41.7% vs 34.1%), for a relative risk (RR) of 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.50; p = 0.045). Women who underwent immediate FET also had a lower frequency of biochemical pregnancy loss (11.7% vs. 30.6%), with a RR of 0.28 (95% CI 0.23-0.63, p < 0.001), and a higher frequency of embryo implantation (25.2% vs. 20.2%), with a RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.01-1.53; p = 0.038). Although the ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates did not differ significantly between the immediate FET and delayed FET groups (37.1% vs 30.3%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99-1.52, p = 0.067; 36.5% vs 30.0%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.98-1.52, p = 0.079, respectively), a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders such as depression and stress levels revealed that the immediate FET group had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than the delayed FET group (odds ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.99, p = 0.041; odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.96, p = 0.031). The risks of maternal and neonatal complications were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with a previous failed IVF-ET attempt, immediate FET resulted in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than delayed FET. These findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a delayed FET strategy when apparent risk of high stress level is perceived.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000033313 .

Immediate versus delayed frozen embryo transfer in patients following a stimulated IVF cycle: a randomised controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is there any difference in the ongoing pregnancy rate after immediate versus delayed frozen embryo transfer (FET) following a stimulated IVF cycle?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Immediate FET following a stimulated IVF cycle produced significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate than did delayed FET.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Embryo cryopreservation is an increasingly important part of IVF, but there is still no good evidence to advise when to perform FET following a stimulated IVF cycle. All published studies are retrospective, and the findings are contradictory.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of 724 infertile women carried out in two fertility centres in China between 9 August 2017 and 5 December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Infertile women having their first FET cycle after a stimulated IVF cycle were randomly assigned to either (1) the immediate group in which FET was performed in the first menstrual cycle following the stimulated IVF cycle (n = 362) or (2) the delayed group in which FET was performed in the second or later menstrual cycle following the stimulated IVF cycle (n = 362). All FET cycles were performed in hormone replacement cycles. The randomisation sequence was generated using an online randomisation program with block sizes of four. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate, defined as a viable pregnancy beyond 12 weeks of gestation. The non-inferiority margin was -10%. Analysis was performed by both per-protocol and intention-to-treat approaches.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Women in the immediate group were slightly younger than those in the delayed group (30.0 (27.7-33.5) versus 31.0 (28.5-34.2), respectively, P = 0.006), but the proportion of women ≤35 years was comparable between the two groups (308/362, 85.1% in the immediate group versus 303/362, 83.7% in the delayed group). The ongoing pregnancy rate was 49.6% (171/345) in the immediate group and 41.5% (142/342) in the delayed group (odds ratios 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.98, P = 0.034). The live birth rate was 47.2% (163/345) in the immediate group and 37.7% (129/342) in the delayed group (odds ratios 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92, P = 0.012). The miscarriage rate was 13.2% (26 of 197 women) in the immediate group and 24.2% (43 of 178 women) in the delayed group (odds ratios 2.10; 95% CI 1.23-3.58, P = 0.006). The multivariable logistic regression, which adjusted for potential confounding factors including maternal age, number of oocytes retrieved, embryo stage at transfer, number of transferred embryos/blastocysts, reasons for FET, ovarian stimulation protocol and trigger type, demonstrated that the ongoing pregnancy rate was still higher in the immediate group.

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

Despite randomisation, the two groups still differed slightly in the age of the women at IVF. The study was powered to consider the ongoing pregnancy rate, but the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Conclusions relating to the observed differences between the treatment groups in terms of live birth rate should, therefore, be made with caution.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Immediate FET following a stimulated IVF cycle had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate than delayed FET. The findings of this study support immediate FET after a stimulated IVF cycle.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was used and no competing interests were declared.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTials.gov identifier: NCT03201783.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

28 June 2017.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

9 August 2017.

Meta-analysis of the embryo freezing transfer interval

BACKGROUND

The decision of whether frozen embryo transfer (FET) should be performed in the cycle immediately after OPU or at least one cycle later is controversial. FET could improve pregnancy rates in IVF; however, how much time is needed for the endometrium to return to optimal receptivity after ovarian stimulation is not known.

METHODS

Electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies providing data on the influence of the interval between embryo freezing (or OPU) and FET in FET cycles published between January 1, 2007, and February 1, 2020.

MAIN FINDINGS

Data analyzed indicated that in the immediate FET cycles, there was a trend to an increased biochemical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.08; CI = 1.00-1.18), whereas the clinical pregnancy rate was somewhat higher, but without reaching statistical significance (RR = 1.07; CI = 0.99-1.15). The live birth rate was similar in the two groups (RR = 1.05; CI = 0.95-1.15), as was the implantation rate (RR = 0.98; CI = 0.83-1.16). Stratifying by embryo stage or FET type (freeze-all or FET after failed fresh transfer) showed no differences.

CONCLUSION

Systematically delaying FET does not offer benefits to IVF outcomes. In addition, immediate transfer is associated with a nonsignificant trend to better clinical pregnancy rate and it also avoids the psychological effects of prolonging the stress on prospective parents.

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.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Immediate Versus Delayed Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer on the Ongoing Pregnancy Rate After a Failed IVF Attempt: Study Protocol for a Randomized, Non-Inferiority, Parallel-Group, Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

In clinical practice, the ideal time at which to perform a Frozen-thawed Embryo Transfer (FET) after a failed In-vitro Fertilization-embryo Transfer (IVF-ET) is still unclear to most practicing physicians. In addition, physicians often delay the introduction of FET due to concerns on the possible residual effects of ovarian hyperstimulation, which may interfere with the regular menstrual cycle. Moreover, given that most of the published studies on the topic are retrospective with contradictory findings, it is crucial to provide evidence-based randomized control guides for clinical practice.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

The study is a randomized, non-inferiority, parallel-group, controlled trial that will enroll a total of 732 women undergoing their first FET after a failed fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycle. The participants will then be randomized into two groups based on a computer-generated randomized list. The two groups include: (i) an immediate group were FET will be carried out during the first menstrual cycle after a failed fresh ET cycle and (ii) a delayed group where FET will be carried out during the second menstrual cycle after a failed fresh ET cycle. Primary outcomes will be defined as viable pregnancies with fetal heartbeats, diagnosed through pelvic ultrasonography after twelve weeks of gestation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Assisted Reproductive Medicine at the Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (SDTCM/E-2020.2.01). In addition, written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants before the study. The results of this trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

DISCUSSION

Currently, there is no consensus with regard to the duration after which the effects of ovarian stimulation are observed after a failed fresh ET and the optimal time required to begin FET. Moreover, no randomized controlled trial exists that compares the ongoing pregnancy rates after immediate versus delayed FET following a failed fresh ET cycle. Therefore, it is important to conduct a well-designed randomized trial to determine whether it is necessary to delay FET for at least one menstrual cycle after the failure of fresh ET.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000033313 (http://www.chictr.org.cn/enIndex.aspx).

Delayed versus immediate frozen embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare pregnancy outcomes between immediate frozen embryo transfer (FET) performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval and delayed FET following subsequent cycles.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies through January 2020. The main outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and pregnancy loss rate (PLR). The effect size was estimated as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effects model. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed by the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies involving 18,230 cycles were included. The pooled results revealed no significant differences between delayed and immediate FET in CPR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.03; I² = 67.9%), LBR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.03; I² = 67.5%), and PLR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87-1.26; I² = 42.7%). Subgroup analyses of freeze-all cycles showed a marginal decrease of CPR in delayed FET (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.00; I² = 53.6%), but no significant changes were observed regarding LBR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.02; I² = 65.2%) and PLR (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.84-1.41; I² = 59.1%). No statistical differences were found in effect estimates among other subgroup analyses by ovarian stimulation protocol, trigger agent, endometrial preparation regimen, and embryo stage.

CONCLUSION

Timing of the first FET after oocyte retrieval was not significantly associated with pregnancy outcomes. This finding refutes the current common practice to delay FET after oocyte retrieval and reassures patients who wish to proceed with FET at their earliest convenience. Due to the high heterogeneity and observational nature of included studies, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the results.

Timing of frozen-thawed embryo transfer after controlled ovarian stimulation in a non-elective freeze-all policy

Background

Non-elective freeze-all policy has been increasingly utilized in assisted reproductive treatment, but the optimal timing of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) remains to be investigated.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 2,998 patients who underwent their first FETs after the first COS cycles using the non-elective freeze-all strategy from Jan 2013 to Dec 2016 at a tertiary-care academic medical center. Patients were divided into the "immediate" group in which FET took place within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval, and the "delayed" group where FET started after one or more menstrual cycles following COS.

Results

The mean interval between oocyte retrieval and FET was 33.3±5.8 days in the immediate group (n=280; 9.3%) and 91.3±19.4 days in the delayed group (n=2,718; 90.7%). Cycles with delayed FET had a significantly lower live birth rate than those with immediate FET before [1,246/2,718 (45.8%) vs. 156/280 (55.7%); P=0.002] and after propensity score matching (PSM) [123/280 (43.9%) vs. 156/280 (55.7%); P=0.005]. When controlling for a number of confounding factors by multivariable logistic regression analysis, the risk remained significant with the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.69 (0.53-0.90) and 0.60 (0.42-0.85) before and after matching, respectively.

Conclusions

Performing FET immediately within the first menstrual cycle following COS was associated with a higher chance to achieve live birth compared with delaying FET to subsequent cycles in a non-elective freeze-all policy. However, further randomized controlled trials are still needed to confirm this conclusion.