16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Transfer of Fresh versus Frozen Embryos in Ovulatory Women

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Elective frozen-embryo transfer has been shown to result in a higher live-birth rate than fresh-embryo transfer among anovulatory women with the polycystic ovary syndrome. It is uncertain whether frozen-embryo transfer increases live-birth rates among ovulatory women with infertility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of obstetric and perinatal complications in singleton pregnancies after the transfer of frozen thawed and fresh embryos generated through IVF. Systematic review. Observational studies, comparing obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies subsequent to frozen thawed ET versus fresh embryo transfer, were included from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, DARE, and CINAHL (1984-2012). Women undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the relevant studies using critical appraisal skills program scoring. Risk ratios and risk differences were calculated in Rev Man 5.1. Subgroup analysis was performed on matched cohort studies. Antepartum hemorrhage, very preterm birth, preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birth weight, very low birth weight, cesarean section, congenital anomalies, perinatal mortality, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Singleton pregnancies after the transfer of frozen thawed embryos were associated with better perinatal outcomes compared with those after fresh IVF embryos. The relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of antepartum hemorrhage (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81), preterm birth (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.78-0.90), small for gestational age (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.66), low birth weight (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76), and perinatal mortality (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96) were lower in women who received frozen embryos. Although fresh ET is the norm in IVF, results of this systematic review of observational studies suggest that pregnancies arising from the transfer of frozen thawed IVF embryos seem to have better obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Copyright © 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence.

            Improvements in vitrification now make frozen embryo transfers (FETs) a viable alternative to fresh embryo transfer, with reports from observational studies and randomized controlled trials suggesting that: (i) the endometrium in stimulated cycles is not optimally prepared for implantation; (ii) pregnancy rates are increased following FET and (iii) perinatal outcomes are less affected after FET.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A meta-analysis of outcomes of conventional IVF in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

              This meta-analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of conventional IVF in women presenting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and non-PCOS patients. Studies in which PCOS patients undergoing IVF were compared with a matched--no male factor--control group were considered for this review. A definition consistent with the Rotterdam consensus criteria of PCOS was required, and all patients within a given study had to be treated with the same ovarian stimulation protocol. Information regarding patient characteristics and pregnancy outcome was also required. Nine out of 290 identified studies reporting data on 458 PCOS patients (793 cycles) and 694 matched controls (1116 cycles) fulfilled these inclusion criteria. PCOS patients demonstrated a significantly reduced chance of oocyte retrieval per started cycle, odds ratio (OR) = 0.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.2-1.0]. However, no difference was observed in chance of embryo transfer per oocyte retrieval between the groups (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Significantly more oocytes per retrieval were obtained in PCOS patients compared with controls [random effects estimate 3.4 [95% (CI) = 1.7-5.1)]. The number of oocytes fertilized did not differ significantly between PCOS patients and controls, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.1 oocytes (95% CI = 21.4-1.6). No significant difference was observed in the clinical pregnancy rates per started cycle, OR = 1.0 (95% CI = 0.8-1.3). The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) after oocyte retrieval was rarely reported. This meta-analysis demonstrates an increased cancellation rate, but more oocytes retrieved per retrieval and a lower fertilization rate in PCOS undergoing IVF. Overall, PCOS and control patients achieved similar pregnancy and live birth rates per cycle.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS)
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                January 11 2018
                January 11 2018
                : 378
                : 2
                : 126-136
                Article
                10.1056/NEJMoa1705334
                29320646
                a55c8f10-d735-4fdb-ac42-2cab23d4e7de
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article