Embryo stage of development is not decisive for reproductive outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Carvalho Bruno R de,Barbosa Marina W Paes,Bonesi Helena,Gomes David B,Cabral Íris O,Barbosa Antônio C Paes,Silva Adelino A,Iglesias José R,Nakagawa Hitomi M JBRA assisted reproduction OBJECTIVE:To evaluate if the outcomes of IVF/ICSI in frozen-thawed embryo transfer and fresh embryo transfer cycles differ in relation to cleavage and blastocyst stages. METHODS:Retrospective cohort study to compare IVF/ICSI outcomes between fresh embryo transfer and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles, according to the stage of embryo development. Analysis was carried out on 443 consecutive embryo transfer cycles performed between January 1st and December 31st, 2014. Women aged up to 38 and submitted to embryo transfer cycles with fresh (n = 309) or frozen-thawed (n = 134) embryos at a private center for assistance in human reproduction were considered for analysis. Results in each group were stratified according to the stage of embryo development: cleavage stage and blastocyst stage. Main outcome measures were implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate and live birth rate per cycle. RESULTS:In the fresh embryo transfer group, for cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage, respectively, implantation rates were 22% and 47% (p = 0.0005); clinical pregnancy rates were 34% and 64% (p = 0.0057); the ongoing pregnancy rates were 30% and 61% (p = 0.0046) and live birth rates were 28% and 55% (p = 0.0148). There were no significant differences in the rates between cleavage and blastocyst stages in the frozen-thawed group, neither between fresh and frozen-thawed cleavage embryo transfers nor between fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers. CONCLUSION:Our results confirm that blastocyst transfer is better than cleavage stage in fresh embryo transfer cycles. In frozen-thawed cycles, cleavage or blastocyst stages seem to offer similar reproductive outcomes. 10.5935/1518-0557.20170007

What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Groenewoud Eva R,Cantineau Astrid E P,Kollen Boudewijn J,Macklon Nick S,Cohlen Ben J Human reproduction update BACKGROUND Frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) enables surplus embryos derived from IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment to be stored and transferred at a later date. In recent years the number of FET cycles performed has increased due to transferring fewer embryos per transfer and improved laboratory techniques. Currently, there is little consensus on the most effective method of endometrium preparation prior to FET. METHODS Using both MEDLINE and EMBASE database a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature was performed. Case-series, case-control studies and articles in languages other than English, Dutch or Spanish were excluded. Those studies comparing clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates as well as live birth rates in (i) true natural cycle FET (NC-FET) versus modified NC-FET, (ii) NC-FET versus artificial cycle FET (AC-FET), (iii) AC-FET versus artificial with GnRH agonist cycle FET and (iv) NC-FET versus artificial with GnRH agonist cycle FET were included. Forest plots were constructed and relative risks or odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS A total of 43 publications were selected for critical appraisal and 20 articles were included in the final review. For all comparisons, no differences in the clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate or live birth rate could be found. Based on information provided in the articles no conclusions could be drawn with regard to cancellation rates. CONCLUSIONS Based on the current literature it is not possible to identify one method of endometrium preparation in FET as being more effective than another. Therefore, all of the current methods of endometrial preparation appear to be equally successful in terms of ongoing pregnancy rate. However, in some comparisons predominantly retrospective studies were included leaving these comparisons subject to selection and publication bias. Also patients' preferences as well as cost-efficiency were not addressed in any of the included studies. Therefore, prospective randomized studies addressing these issues are needed. 10.1093/humupd/dmt030