Erica T Wang1, Anupama S Q Kathiresan1, Catherine Bresee2, Naomi Greene1, Carolyn Alexander1, Margareta D Pisarska3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. Cedars Sinai Biostatistics & Bioinformatics Core, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: pisarskam@cshs.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fresh embryo transfers are at a higher risk of abnormal implantation compared with frozen embryo transfers while accounting for the embryo stage at transfer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): We used data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies to identify all fresh and frozen autologous IVF cycles from 2004-2013 resulting in a positive pregnancy test. The cycles were parameterized into a four-level predictor of [1] fresh blastocyst transfer, [2] fresh non-blastocyst transfer, [3] frozen blastocyst transfer, and [4] frozen non-blastocyst transfer. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We examined a composite outcome of abnormal implantation, defined as biochemical pregnancy, ectopic/heterotopic pregnancy, and first-trimester pregnancy loss. Regression modeling was performed with repeated measures multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for age, parity, number of embryos transferred, infertility diagnosis, and calendar year of treatment. RESULT(S): Of 509,938 cycles analyzed, 31.8% resulted in abnormal implantation. Compared with a fresh blastocyst transfer, a fresh non-blastocyst transfer had a 22% increase risk of abnormal implantation, a frozen blastocyst transfer had a 36% increase risk, and a frozen non-blastocyst transfer had a 57% increase risk. When individual outcomes were analyzed, fresh embryo transfers had a lower risk of biochemical pregnancy and pregnancy loss but a higher risk for ectopic/heterotopic pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): Fresh blastocyst transfers had the lowest overall risk of abnormal implantation but a higher risk of ectopic/heterotopic pregnancy. Although embryo cryopreservation is indicated in certain treatment cycles, elective embryo cryopreservation may not be the optimal strategy to adopt for all cycles.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fresh embryo transfers are at a higher risk of abnormal implantation compared with frozen embryo transfers while accounting for the embryo stage at transfer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): We used data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies to identify all fresh and frozen autologous IVF cycles from 2004-2013 resulting in a positive pregnancy test. The cycles were parameterized into a four-level predictor of [1] fresh blastocyst transfer, [2] fresh non-blastocyst transfer, [3] frozen blastocyst transfer, and [4] frozen non-blastocyst transfer. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We examined a composite outcome of abnormal implantation, defined as biochemical pregnancy, ectopic/heterotopic pregnancy, and first-trimester pregnancy loss. Regression modeling was performed with repeated measures multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for age, parity, number of embryos transferred, infertility diagnosis, and calendar year of treatment. RESULT(S): Of 509,938 cycles analyzed, 31.8% resulted in abnormal implantation. Compared with a fresh blastocyst transfer, a fresh non-blastocyst transfer had a 22% increase risk of abnormal implantation, a frozen blastocyst transfer had a 36% increase risk, and a frozen non-blastocyst transfer had a 57% increase risk. When individual outcomes were analyzed, fresh embryo transfers had a lower risk of biochemical pregnancy and pregnancy loss but a higher risk for ectopic/heterotopic pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): Fresh blastocyst transfers had the lowest overall risk of abnormal implantation but a higher risk of ectopic/heterotopic pregnancy. Although embryo cryopreservation is indicated in certain treatment cycles, elective embryo cryopreservation may not be the optimal strategy to adopt for all cycles.
Authors: Bruce S Shapiro; Said T Daneshmand; Forest C Garner; Martha Aguirre; Cynthia Hudson; Shyni Thomas Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: M S Rifouna; A D Reus; A H J Koning; P J van der Spek; N Exalto; E A P Steegers; J S E Laven Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Maya Barsky; Peter St Marie; Tayyab Rahil; Glenn R Markenson; Cynthia K Sites Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Tania L Gonzalez; Tianyanxin Sun; Alexander F Koeppel; Bora Lee; Erica T Wang; Charles R Farber; Stephen S Rich; Lauren W Sundheimer; Rae A Buttle; Yii-Der Ida Chen; Jerome I Rotter; Stephen D Turner; John Williams; Mark O Goodarzi; Margareta D Pisarska Journal: Biol Sex Differ Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 5.027