Dataset Information

Delayed versus immediate frozen embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare pregnancy outcomes between immediate frozen embryo transfer (FET) performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval and delayed FET following subsequent cycles.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies through January 2020. The main outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and pregnancy loss rate (PLR). The effect size was estimated as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effects model. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed by the I² statistic.

Results

Twelve retrospective cohort studies involving 18,230 cycles were included. The pooled results revealed no significant differences between delayed and immediate FET in CPR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.03; I² = 67.9%), LBR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.03; I² = 67.5%), and PLR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87-1.26; I² = 42.7%). Subgroup analyses of freeze-all cycles showed a marginal decrease of CPR in delayed FET (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.00; I² = 53.6%), but no significant changes were observed regarding LBR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.02; I² = 65.2%) and PLR (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.84-1.41; I² = 59.1%). No statistical differences were found in effect estimates among other subgroup analyses by ovarian stimulation protocol, trigger agent, endometrial preparation regimen, and embryo stage.

Conclusion

Timing of the first FET after oocyte retrieval was not significantly associated with pregnancy outcomes. This finding refutes the current common practice to delay FET after oocyte retrieval and reassures patients who wish to proceed with FET at their earliest convenience. Due to the high heterogeneity and observational nature of included studies, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the results.

SUBMITTER: Huang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7468025 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal time at which to perform a frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) following a failed in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) attempt remains elusive to most reproductive experts. Physicians often delay the introduction of FET due to concerns related to potential residual effects of ovarian hyperstimulation which may interfere with the regular menstrual cycle. Moreover, given that most of the published studies on the topic are retrospective and have inconsistent findings, it is crucial to develop evidence-based randomized control guides for clinical practice. Therefore, this well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine whether it is necessary to delay FET for at least one menstrual cycle after the failure of fresh embryo transfer.MethodsInfertile women eligible for IVF-ET were invited to participate in this multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, parallel-group, unblinded, controlled trial at the academic fertility centers of four public hospitals in Chinese Mainland. Infertile women scheduled to receive their first FET cycle after a failed IVF-ET attempt were randomly assigned to either (a) the immediate FET group in which FET was performed in the first menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366) or (b) the delayed FET group in which FET was performed in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366). All FET cycles were performed during hormone replacement cycles for endometrial preparation. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy, defined as a detectable fetal heart beat beyond twelve weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were other pregnancy-related outcomes, maternal and neonatal complications. Analysis was performed by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles.ResultsA total of 646 FETs were completed. The frequency of moderate to severe depression and high stress level prior to FET in delayed FET group were significantly higher than that in immediate FET group (10.6% vs 6.1%, p = 0.039; 30.3% vs 22.4%, p = 0.022, respectively). Immediate FET resulted in a higher frequency of clinical pregnancy than did delayed FET (41.7% vs 34.1%), for a relative risk (RR) of 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.50; p = 0.045). Women who underwent immediate FET also had a lower frequency of biochemical pregnancy loss (11.7% vs. 30.6%), with a RR of 0.28 (95% CI 0.23-0.63, p < 0.001), and a higher frequency of embryo implantation (25.2% vs. 20.2%), with a RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.01-1.53; p = 0.038). Although the ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates did not differ significantly between the immediate FET and delayed FET groups (37.1% vs 30.3%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99-1.52, p = 0.067; 36.5% vs 30.0%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.98-1.52, p = 0.079, respectively), a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders such as depression and stress levels revealed that the immediate FET group had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than the delayed FET group (odds ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.99, p = 0.041; odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.96, p = 0.031). The risks of maternal and neonatal complications were comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsIn women with a previous failed IVF-ET attempt, immediate FET resulted in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than delayed FET. These findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a delayed FET strategy when apparent risk of high stress level is perceived.Trial registrationChiCTR2000033313 .

Project description:BackgroundImmediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS), the cataract surgery that is performed in both eyes simultaneously, is gaining popularity worldwide compared to the traditional treatment paradigm: delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS), the surgery that is performed in each eye on a different day as a completely separate operation. ISBCS provides advantages to patients and patients' families in the form of fewer hospital visits. Additionally, patients enjoy rapid rehabilitation, lack of anisometropia - potentially reducing accidents and falls, and avoid suboptimal visual function in daily life. The hospital may benefit due to lower cost.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate ISBCS and DSBCS.Data sourcesDatabases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), ISI Web of Science (Thomson-Reuters) and the Cochrane Library were searched.ParticipantsNot applicable.MethodsLiterature was systematically reviewed using EPPI-Reviewer 4 gateway. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA v. 13.0. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were computed based on heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was done by instrument used to calculate utility score.ResultsIn total, 9,133 records were retrieved from multiple databases and an additional 128 records were identified through grey literature search. Eleven articles with 3,657 subjects were included for analysis. Our meta-analysis results indicated significant improvement in post-operative utility score using TTO, EQ5D, HUI3, VF-7, and VF-14 and a non-significant improvement using Catquest questionnaire for both surgeries. For ISBCS versus DSBCS, utility-specific fixed-effect model provided an overall SMD of the utility score using the TTO method as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), EQ5D as 0.14 (95% CI: -0.14, 0.41), HUI3 as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), VF-7 as -0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.10), and Catquest Questionnaire as 1.45 (95% CI: -0.88, 2.01). The results for utility score, which were measured using various instruments, indicated non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS. However, a significant improvement in post-operative utility score was seen using Catquest questionnaire for ISBCS compared to DSBCS. The included studies using VF-14 instrument were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 97.1%). Results provided SMD of -0.25 (95% CI:-1.06, 0.57) using VF-14 indicating non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS surgery. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved after both surgeries (overall SMD of BCVA due to ISBCS was -1.79 (95% CI: -2.45, -1.14) and due to DSBCS was -1.53 (95% CI: -2.25, -0.81)). A non-significant improvement was seen in BCVA due to ISBCS when compared to DSBCS (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.01).ConclusionBoth surgeries, ISBCS and DSBCS significantly improve patients' quality of life and visual acuity. Further, ISBCS may deliver certain additional benefits at the individual and societal levels as well.

Project description:IntroductionToday, it is widespread practice to postpone frozen embryo transfer (FET) in a modified natural cycle (mNC) for at least one menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval and failed fresh embryo transfer or freeze-all. The rationale behind this practice is the concern that suboptimal ovarian, endometrial or endocrinological conditions following ovarian stimulation may have a negative impact on endometrial receptivity and implantation. However, two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on retrospective data did not support this practice. As unnecessary delay in time to transfer and pregnancy should be avoided, the aim of this study is to investigate if immediate single blastocyst transfer in mNC-FET is non-inferior to standard postponed single blastocyst transfer in mNC-FET in terms of live birth rate.Methods and analysisMulticentre randomised controlled non-blinded trial including 464 normo-ovulatory women aged 18-40 years undergoing single blastocyst mNC-FET after a failed fresh or freeze-all cycle. Participants are randomised 1:1 to either FET in the first menstrual cycle following the stimulated cycle (immediate FET) or FET in the second or subsequent cycle following the stimulated cycle (postponed FET). The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial and primary analyses will be performed as intention to treat and per protocol.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (J-nr.: H-19086300). Data will be handled according to Danish law on personal data protection in accordance with the general data protection regulation. Participants will complete written consent forms regarding participation in the study and storage of blood samples in a biobank for future research. The study will be monitored by a Good Clinical Practice (GCP)-trained study nurse not otherwise involved in the study. The results of this study will be disseminated by publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.Trial registration numberNCT04748874; Pre-results.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Although considerable research has been devoted to examining the distinctions between fresh and frozen embryo transfer regarding obstetric outcomes and rates of pregnancy success, there is still a scarcity of thorough analyses that specifically examine neonatal outcomes. The objective of our study was to provide an in-depth analysis of neonatal outcomes that occur after the transfer of fresh and frozen embryos (ET vs. FET) in IVF/ICSI cycles. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wiley, Scopus, Ovid and Science Direct) were searched from January 1980 to February 2024. Two reviewers conducted the article identification and data extraction, meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results: Twenty studies, including 171,481 participants in total, were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses. A significant increase in preterm birth rates was noted with fresh embryo transfer compared to FET in the overall IVF/ICSI population (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.18-1.35, p < 0.00001), as well as greater odds of a low birth weight (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.27-1.48, p < 0.00001) and small-for-gestational-age infants in this group (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.63-2.00, p < 0.00001). In contrast, frozen embryo transfer can result in macrosomic (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.54-0.65, p < 0.00001) or large-for-gestational-age infants (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60-0.69, p < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed regarding congenital malformations or neonatal death rates. Conclusions: This systematic review confirmed that singleton babies conceived by frozen embryo transfer are at lower risk of preterm delivery, low birthweight and being small for gestational age than their counterparts conceived by fresh embryo transfer. The data support embryo cryopreservation but suggest that elective freezing should be limited to cases with a proven indication or within the framework of a clinical study.