Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 30, Issue 12, pp 1589–1594 | Cite as

The outcome of different post-thawed culture period in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle

  • Lei Guo
  • Chen Luo
  • Song Quan
  • Leining Chen
  • Hong Li
  • Yangchun Guo
  • Zhiming Han
  • Xianghong Ou
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



To study the influence of post-thawed culture (2–4 h and 20–24 h) on the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle.


In this retrospective study, a total of 1,353 patients were undergoing the FET treatment at the reproductive medical center between June 2010 and July 2012. 3,398 frozen-thawed embryos were divided in two study groups, depending on their post-thawed culture period: short culture (2–4 h) group and long culture (20–24 h) group. Groups were compared including clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, spontaneous abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, live birth rate and birth weight.


When embryos including at least one grade I embryo after thawed transferred, the clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, multiple pregnancy rate, abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, live birth rate and birth weight were similar in the short culture group compared with these in the long culture group.


The outcomes of the two approaches (short culture and long culture) are no different in FET cycles.


Frozen-thawed embryo transfer Post-thawed culture Clinical pregnancy rate Implantation rate Live birth rate 



This work was supported by the President Foundation of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University (Grant No.2012C025).


  1. 1.
    Zeilmaker GH, Alberda AT, van Gent I, Rijkmans CM, Drogendijk AC. Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen-thawed embryos. Fertil Steril. 1984;42(2):293–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sifer C, Sellami A, Poncelet C, Martin-Pont B, Porcher R, Hugues JN, et al. Day 3 compared with day 2 cryopreservation does not affect embryo survival but improves the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5):1537–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mocanu EV, Cottell E, Waite K, Hennelly B, Collins C, Harrison RF. Frozen-thawed transfer cycles: are they comparable with fresh? Ir Med J. 2008;101(6):181–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balaban B, Urman 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(9):1976–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vajta G, Nagy ZP. Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(6):779–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang XL, Zhang X, Qin YQ, Hao DY, Shi HR. Outcomes of day 3 embryo transfer with vitrification using Cryoleaf: a 3-year follow-up study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(9):883–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stehlik E, Stehlik J, Katayama KP, Kuwayama M, Jambor V, Brohammer R, et al. Vitrification demonstrates significant improvement versus slow freezing of human blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11(1):53–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shi X, Chen S, Zheng H, Wang L, Wu Y. Aberrant DNA methylation of imprinted loci in human in vitro matured oocytes after long agonist stimulation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167(1):64–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2571–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashwood-Smith MJ, Morris GW, Fowler R, Appleton TC, Ashorn R. Physical factors are involved in the destruction of embryos and oocytes during freezing and thawing procedures. Hum Reprod. 1988;3(6):795–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lan KC, Huang FJ, Lin YC, Kung FT, Hsieh CH, Huang HW, et al. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1299–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Gambardella L, Giusti A, Grugnetti C, Corani G. Objective way to support embryo transfer: a probabilistic decision. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(5):1210–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guerif F, Bidault R, Cadoret V, Couet ML, Lansac J, Royere D. Parameters guiding selection of best embryos for transfer after cryopreservation: a reappraisal. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(5):1321–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edgar DH, Bourne H, Speirs AL, McBain JC. A quantitative analysis of the impact of cryopreservation on the implantation potential of human early cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(1):175–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1513–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rato ML, Gouveia-Oliveira A, Plancha CE. Influence of post-thaw culture on the developmental potential of human frozen embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(8):789–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joshi BV, Banker MR, Patel PM, Shah PB. Transfer of human frozen-thawed embryos with further cleavage during culture increases pregnancy rates. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2010;3(2):76–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shi W, Zhang S, Zhao W, Xia X, Wang M, Wang H, Bai H, Shi J. Factors related to clinical pregnancy after vitrified-warmed embryo transfer: a retrospective and multivariate logistic regression analysis of 2313 transfer cycles. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(7):1768–75.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Templeton A, Morris JK. Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(9):573–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Montfoort AP, Fiddelers AA, Janssen JM, Derhaag JG, Dirksen CD, Dunselman GA, et al. In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(2):338–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang HospitalSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Biology, Institute of ZoologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations