Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after frozen and fresh embryo transfer in ART cycles

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Frozen embryo transfer (FET) has no clear negative impact on neonatal outcome compared with fresh embryo transfer (ET) and appears to result in similar or even better neonatal outcome. The objective of this study was to compare early pregnancy outcome and neonatal health of children born after FET and fresh ET.

Methods

In this study early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after FET (n = 200) and fresh ET (n = 500) were compared.

Results

For early pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy was comparable between FET and fresh ET groups. Spontaneous abortion was significantly higher in FET (14.5%) than fresh ET group (9%). Neonatal outcome was comparable between both groups except for lower live birth rate in FET (55%) versus fresh ET group (66%).

Conclusion

FET has similar neonatal outcome in terms of prematurity, low birth weight, stillbirth, neonatal death and major malformation compared with fresh ET.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zeilmaker GH, Alberda AT, van Gent I, Rijkmans CM, Drogendijk AC. Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen-thawed embryo. Fertil Steril. 1984;42:293–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wada I, Macnamee MC, Wick K, Bradfield JM, Brinsden PR. Birth characteristics and perinatal outcome of babies conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:543–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wennerholm WB. Cryopreservation of embryos and oocytes: obstetric outcome and health in children. Hum Reprod. 2000;15 Suppl 5:18–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang YA, Sullivan EA, Black D, Dean J, Bryant J, Chapman M. Preterm birth and low birth weight after assisted reproductive technology-related pregnancy in Australia between 1996 and 2000. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1650–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Belva F, Henriet S, Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Devroey P, Van der Elst J, et al. Neonatal outcome of 937 children born after transfer of cryopreserved embryos obtained by ICSI and IVF and comparison with outcome data of fresh ICSI and IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2227–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shih W, Rushford DD, Bourne H, Garrett C, McBain JC, Healy DL, et al. Factors affecting low birthweight after assisted reproduction technology: difference between transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos suggests an adverse effect of oocyte collection. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1644–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pinborg A, Loft A, Aaris Henningsen AK, Rasmussen S, Nyboe Andersen A. Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: The Danish National Cohort Study 1995–2006. Fertil Steril. 2009 Jul 30.

  8. Bergh C, Werner C, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. Cumulative birth rates following cryopreservation of all embryos in stimulated in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12:191–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hyden-Granskog C, Unkila-Kallio L, Halttunen M, Tiitinen A. Single embryo transfer is an option in frozen embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2935–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sutcliffe AG, D'Souza SW, Cadman J, Richards B, McKinlay IA, Lieberman B. Outcome in children from cryopreserved embryos. Arch Dis Child. 1995;72:290–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wennerholm UB, Hamberger L, Nilsson L, Wennergren M, Wikland M, Bergh C. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of children conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1819–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Westergaard HB, Johansen AM, Erb K, Andersen AN. Danish National In-Vitro Fertilization Registry 1994 and 1995: a controlled study of births, malformations and cytogenetic findings. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1896–902.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pelkonen S, Koivunen R, Gissler M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Suikkari AM, Hyden-Granskog C, et al. Perinatal outcome of children born after frozen and fresh embryo transfer: the Finnish cohort study 1995–2006. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:914–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nyboe Andersen A, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Ferraretti AP, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and intrauterine inseminations in Europe, 2005: results generated from European registers by ESHRE: ESHRE. The European IVF Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1267–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Bergh C, Aittomaki K, Hazekamp J, Nygren KG, et al. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2158–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Can fresh embryo transfers be replaced by cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in assisted reproductive cycles? A randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Apr 6.

  17. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Movaghar B. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:347–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aytoz A, Van den Abbeel E, Bonduelle M, Camus M, Joris H, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Obstetric outcome of pregnancies after the transfer of cryopreserved and fresh embryos obtained by conventional in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2619–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Van Waesberghe L, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Viability of partially damaged human embryos after cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(9):2006–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salumets A, Suikkari AM, Makinen S, Karro H, Roos A, Tuuri T. Frozen embryo transfers: implications of clinical and embryological factors on the pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2368–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Steirteghem AC, Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Joris H, Camus M, Devroey P. Cryopreservation of supernumerary multicellular human embryos obtained after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:775–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:1144–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:611–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fedder J, Gabrielsen A, Humaidan P, Erb K, Ernst E, Loft A. Malformation rate and sex ratio in 412 children conceived with epididymal or testicular sperm. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1080–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Baker VL, Ginsburg E, Stern JE. The sex ratio of singleton offspring in assisted-conception pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1579–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to many colleagues and nursing staff of the Yazd research and clinical center for infertility and Madar hospital for their assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research and Clinical center for Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Science, Bouali Ave, Safaieh, 8916877391, Yazd, Iran

    Abbas Aflatoonian, Fatemeh Mansoori Moghaddam, Mehri Mashayekhy & Farnaz Mohamadian

Authors
  1. Abbas Aflatoonian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatemeh Mansoori Moghaddam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehri Mashayekhy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farnaz Mohamadian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatemeh Mansoori Moghaddam.

Additional information

Capsule Frozen-thawed embryo transfer has no negative impact on neonatal outcome compared with fresh embryo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aflatoonian, A., Mansoori Moghaddam, F., Mashayekhy, M. et al. Comparison of early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after frozen and fresh embryo transfer in ART cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 27, 695–700 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9470-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9470-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation