RETRACTED ARTICLE: Can fresh embryo transfers be replaced by cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in assisted reproductive cycles? A randomized controlled trial

  • Abbas Aflatoonian
  • Homa Oskouian
  • Shahnaz Ahmadi
  • Leila Oskouian
Assisted Reproduction



Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation has been shown to advance endometrial maturation and adversely affects implantation in ART. It has been reported that there is a better embryo-endometrium synchrony in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles than fresh embryo transfer cycles. The objective of this study was to compare ongoing pregnancy rates between fresh ET and FET cycles.


In an open prospective, controlled study, the patients who were classified as high responders, were randomized to either fresh ET or FET. The embryos in FET group were cryopreserved with vitrification by Cryotop method.


A total of 374 patients were included, 187 of which were randomized to FET and 187 to fresh ET. There were 39% (n = 73) ongoing pregnancy in FET group compared with 27.8% (n = 52) in fresh ET group[odds ratio = 1.66;95% confidence interval = 1.07–2.56; p = 0.02].


FETs can be performed instead of fresh ETs to improve the outcome of ART in highly selected patients.


Endometrial receptivity Fresh embryo transfer Frozen-thawed embryo transfer Ongoing pregnancy Vitrification 



The authors are grateful to the nursing and embryology staff of the Yazd Research and Clinical Center for Infertility and Madar Hospital for their assistance.


  1. 1.
    Donaghy M, Lessey BA. Uterine receptivity: alternations associated with benign gynecologic disease. Semin Reprod Med. 2007;25:461–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paulson RJ, Sauer MV, Lobo RA. Factors affecting implantation after human in vitro fertilization: a hypothesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;163:2020–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Check JH, Choe JK, Katsoff D, Summers-Chase D, Wilson C. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation adversely affects implantation following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16:416–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devroey P, Bourgian C, Macklon N, Fauser B. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2004;15:84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolibianakis E, Bourgain C, Albano C, Osmanagaoglu K, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone-antagonist and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:1025–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shapiro B, Daneshmand S, Garner F, Aguirre M, Ross R. Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of day 5 or day 6 blastocysts may reflect difference in embryo-endometrium synchrony. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:20–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vajta G, Kuwayama M. Improving cryopreservation systems. Theriogenology 2006;65:236–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balaban B, Urrman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomized controlled study of human Day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1976–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuleshova LL, Lopata A. Vitrification can be more favorable than slow cooling. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:449–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liebermann J, Nawroth F, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Tucker MJ. Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol Reprod. 2002;67:1671–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vajta G, Nagy ZP. Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:779–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meerssche M, Ryckaert G, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2345–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuwayama M, Vaita G, Kato O, Leibo SP. Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:300–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuwayama M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos, the Cryotop method. Theriogenology 2007;67:73–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1513–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaker AG, Zosmer A, Dean N, Bekir SJ, Jacobs HS, Tan S. Comparison of intravenous albumin and transfer of fresh embryos with cryopreservation of all embryos for subsequent transfer in prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:992–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Selman HA, Feliciani E. Elective cryopreservation of all embryos of all pronucleate embryos in woman at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome efficiency and safety. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1457–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcia JE, Acosta AA, Hsiu JG, Jones Jr HW. Advanced endometrial maturation after ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1984;41:31–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Acosta AA, Elberger L, Borghi M, Calamera JC, Chemes H, Doncel GF, et al. Endometrial dating and determination of the window of implantation in healthy fertile women. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:788–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jabbour HN, Kelly RW, Fraser HM, Critchley HO. Endocrine regulation of menstruation. Endocr Rev. 2006;27:17–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu Y, Lee K, Ng E, Yeung W, Ho P. Gene expression profiling of human peri-implantation endometrial between natural and stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:2152–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, Tondeur S, Rème T, Hedon B, et al. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1436–45.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shapiro B, Daneshmand S, Garner F, Aguirre M, Thomas S. Large blastocyst diameter, early blastulation, and low preovulatory serum progesterone are dominant predictors of clinical pregnancy in fresh autologous cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:302–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guerif F, Bidault R, Cadoret V, Couet M, Lansac J, Royere D. Parameters guiding selection of best embryos for transfer after cryopreservation: a reappraisal. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1321–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pegg DE. Principles of cryopreservation. Methods Mol Biol. 2007;368:39–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yavin S, Aroyo A, Roth Z, Arav A. Embryo cryopreservation in the presence of low concentration of vitrification solution with sealed pulled straws in liquid nitrogen slush. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:797–804.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Takahashi K, Mukaida T, Goto T, Oka C. Perinatal outcome of blastocyst transfer with vitrification using cryoloop: a 4-year follow-up study. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:88–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rama Raju GA, Jaya Prakash G, Murali Krishna K, Madan K. Neonatal outcome after vitrified day 3 embryo transfers: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:143–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bielanski A, Nadin-Davis S, Sapp T, Lutze-Wallace C. Viral contamination of embryos cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen. Cryobiology 2000;40:110–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kyuwa S, Nishikawa T, Kaneko T, Nakashima T, Kawano K, Nakamura N, et al. Experimental evaluation of cross-contamination between cryotubes containing mouse 2-cell embryos and murine pathogens in liquid nitrogen tanks. Exp Anim. 2003;52:67–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Isachenko V, Montag M, Isachenko E, Vander Ven H. Universal aseptic technology of vitrification of human oocytes and embryos (VitAsep): test on the mouse biopsied pronuclear oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(Supp):S400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Larman MG, Sheehan CB, Gardner DK. Vitrification of mouse pronuclear oocytes with no direct liquid nitrogen contact. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:66–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abbas Aflatoonian
    • 1
  • Homa Oskouian
    • 1
  • Shahnaz Ahmadi
    • 1
  • Leila Oskouian
    • 1
  1. 1.Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyShahid Sadoughi University of Medical ScienceYazdIran

Personalised recommendations