Literature DB >> 29155965

Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer?

Abha Maheshwari1, Shilpi Pandey2, Edwin Amalraj Raja3, Ashalatha Shetty1, Mark Hamilton1, Siladitya Bhattacharya3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Initial observational studies and a systematic review published 5 years ago have suggested that obstetric and perinatal outcomes are better in offspring conceived following frozen rather than fresh embryo transfers, with reduced risks of preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birth weight and pre-eclampsia. More recent primary studies are beginning to challenge some of these findings. We therefore conducted an updated systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis to examine if these results have remained consistent over time. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis (trend with time) of obstetric and perinatal complications in singleton pregnancies following the transfer of frozen thawed and fresh embryos generated through in-vitro fertilisation. SEARCH
METHODS: Data Sources from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials DARE and CINAHL (1984-2016) were searched using appropriate key words. Observational and randomised studies comparing obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies conceived through IVF using either fresh or frozen thawed embryos. Two independent reviewers extracted data in 2 × 2 tables and assessed the methodological quality of the relevant studies using CASP scoring. Both aggregated as well as cumulative meta-analysis was done using STATA. OUTCOMES: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Singleton babies conceived from frozen thawed embryos were at lower relative risk (RR) of preterm delivery (0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97) low birth weight (0.72; 95% CI 0.67-0.77) and small for gestational age (0.61; 95% CI 0.56-0.67) compared to those conceived from fresh embryo transfers, but faced an increased risk (RR) of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (1.29; 95% CI 1.07-1.56) large for gestational age (1.54; 95% CI 1.48-1.61) and high birth weight (1.85; 95% CI 1.46-2.33). There was no difference in the risk of congenital anomalies and perinatal mortality between the two groups. The direction and magnitude of effect for these outcomes have remained virtually unchanged over time while the degree of precision has improved with the addition of data from newer studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The results of this cumulative meta-analysis confirm that the decreased risks of small for gestational age, low birth weight and preterm delivery and increased risks of large for gestational age and high birth weight associated with pregnancies conceived from frozen embryos have been consistent in terms of direction and magnitude of effect over several years, with increasing precision around the point estimates. Replication in a number of different populations has provided external validity for the results, for outcomes of birth weight and preterm delivery. Meanwhile, caution should be exercised about embarking on a policy of electively freezing all embryos in IVF as there are increased risks for large for gestational age babies and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Therefore, elective freezing should ideally be undertaken in specific cases such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, fertility preservation or in the context of randomised trials.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  ICSI; IVF; cryopreservation; fresh embryo transfer; frozen replacement cycles; large for gestational age; obstetric outcomes; perinatal outcomes; preterm delivery; small for gestational age

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29155965     DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmx031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod Update        ISSN: 1355-4786            Impact factor:   15.610


  103 in total

1.  Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with trophectoderm biopsy.

Authors:  Wendy Y Zhang; Frauke von Versen-Höynck; Kristopher I Kapphahn; Raquel R Fleischmann; Qianying Zhao; Valerie L Baker
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 7.329

2.  Increased pregnancy complications following frozen-thawed embryo transfer during an artificial cycle.

Authors:  Shuang Jing; Xiao Feng Li; Shuoping Zhang; Fei Gong; Guangxiu Lu; Ge Lin
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Health outcomes for Massachusetts infants after fresh versus frozen embryo transfer.

Authors:  Sunah S Hwang; Dmitry Dukhovny; Daksha Gopal; Howard Cabral; Hafsatou Diop; Charles C Coddington; Judy E Stern
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Vascular Health of Children Conceived via In Vitro Fertilization.

Authors:  Wendy Y Zhang; Elif Seda Selamet Tierney; Angela C Chen; Albee Y Ling; Raquel R Fleischmann; Valerie L Baker
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 5.  Reproductive medicine: Walk, don't run: a case study of frozen embryo transfers.

Authors:  Zev Rosenwaks; Nigel Pereira
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 6.  In Vitro Fertilization Technology and Child Health.

Authors:  Michael von Wolff; Thomas Haaf
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 7.  Epigenetic changes and assisted reproductive technologies.

Authors:  Sneha Mani; Jayashri Ghosh; Christos Coutifaris; Carmen Sapienza; Monica Mainigi
Journal:  Epigenetics       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 4.528

8.  Placental histopathology in IVF pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen-thawed embryos compared with fresh embryos.

Authors:  Yossi Mizrachi; Ariel Weissman; Gili Buchnik Fater; Maya Torem; Eran Horowitz; Letizia Schreiber; Arieh Raziel; Jacob Bar; Michal Kovo
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  AMH-based ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ling Cui; Yonghong Lin; Jinli Lin; Fang Wang
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 2.344

10.  Effect of oocyte donor stimulation on recipient outcomes: data from a US national donor oocyte bank.

Authors:  H S Hipp; A J Gaskins; Z P Nagy; S M Capelouto; D B Shapiro; J B Spencer
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.