Natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer—can we improve cycle outcome?

  • Raoul OrvietoEmail author
  • Noa Feldman
  • Daniel Lantsberg
  • Daphna Manela
  • Eran Zilberberg
  • Jigal Haas
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



Several replacement protocols for frozen-thawed ET (FET) exist, with no advantage of one protocol over the others. In the present study, we aim to evaluate the outcome of natural cycle FET with modified luteal support.


All consecutive patients undergoing natural or artificial hormone replacement (AHR) day-2/3 FET cycles between May 2012 and June 2015 in our IVF unit were evaluated. While AHR FET cycles were consistent, those undergoing natural cycle FET received progesterone luteal support, and from June 2014, patients received two additional injections, one of recombinant hCG and the other of GnRH-agonist, on day of transfer and 4 days later, respectively (modified luteal support).


Patients’ clinical characteristics and laboratory/embryological variables were comparable between those undergoing natural vs. AHR cycles, during the earlier as compared to the later period. Moreover, while implantation, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates were significantly higher during the later period in patients undergoing the natural cycle FET with the modified luteal support (31, 51, and 46 %, respectively), as compared to natural (17, 26, and 20 %, respectively), or AHR FET in the late study period (15, 22, and 17 %, respectively), the natural cycle FET without the additional two injections yielded the same results, as the AHR cycles.


We therefore suggest that in ovulatory patients undergoing FET, natural cycle FET with the modified luteal support should be the preparation protocol of choice. Further large prospective studies are needed to elucidate the aforementioned recommendation prior to its routine implementation.


Cryopreservation IVF Luteal support hCG GnRH-agonist Pregnancy rate 



We have no one to acknowledge and the study was not funded by anyone.

Compliance with ethical standards

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Le Lannou D, Griveau JF, Laurent MC, Gueho A, Veron E, Morcel K. Contribution of embryo cryopreservation to elective single embryo transfer in IVF-ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:368–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orvieto R, Fisch B, Feldberg D. Endometrial preparation for patients undergoing frozen- thawed embryo transfer cycles. In: Allahbadia G, Basuray R, Merchant R, editors. The art & science of assisted reproductive techniques. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2003. p. 396–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AE, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. What the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:458–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orvieto R, Brengauz M, Feldman B. A novel approach to normal responder patient with repeated implantation failures—a case report. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015;31:435–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haas J, Lantsberg D, Feldman N, Manela D, Machtinger R, Dar S, et al. Modifying the luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer improves cycle outcome. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ransil BJ, Seibel MM, Taymor ML. Estimating the onset of the LH surge by cumulative summation. Infertility. 1981;4:295–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mounce G, McVeigh E, Karen K, Child TJ. Randomized, controlled pilot trial of natural versus hormone replacement therapy cycles in frozen embryo replacement in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:915–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levron J, Yerushalmi GM, Brengauz M, Gat I, Katorza E. Comparison between two protocols for thawed embryo transfer: natural cycle versus exogenous hormone replacement. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30:494–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JAM, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10, CD009154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:3–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fatemi HM, Kyrou D, Bourgain C, Van den Abbeel E, Griesinger G, Devroey P. Cryopreserved-thawed human embryo transfer: spontaneous natural cycle is superior to human chorionic gonadotropin–induced natural cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2054–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morley LC, Simpson N, Tang T. Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) for preventing miscarriage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1, CD008611.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tesarik J, Hazout A, Mendoza C. Enhancement of embryo development potential by a single administration of GnRH agonist at the time of implantation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1176–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tesarik J, Hazout A, Mendoza Tesarik R, Mendoza N, Mendoza C. Beneficial effect of luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration on embryo implantation after ICSI in both GnRH agonist and antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2572–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raoul Orvieto
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Noa Feldman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel Lantsberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daphna Manela
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eran Zilberberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jigal Haas
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyChaim Sheba Medical Center (Tel Hashomer)Ramat GanIsrael
  2. 2.Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations