Freeze-all, for whom, when, and how

References

• Simón C, Mercader A, Frances A, Gimeno MJ, Polan ML, Remohí J, et al. Hormonal regulation of serum and endonetrial IL-1 α, IL-1 β, and IL1 ra: IL-1 endometrial microenvironement of the human embryo at the apposition phase under physiological and supra physiological steroid level condition. J Reprod Immunol. 1996;31:165–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2593–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akagbosu F, Marcus S, Abusheikha N, Avery S, Brinsden P. Does ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome affect the quality of oocytes? Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2583–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque M, Haahr T, Geber S, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:2–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;27:357–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S, Zhang J, Heng BC, Huang M, et al. Vitrified-warned blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles- time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1691–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:344–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Restrepo H, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:389–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:156–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Grudzinskas G, Johnson M. Welcome to the ‘100% club’! Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24:375–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuwayama M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos: the Cryotop method. Theriogenology 2007;67:73–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobo A, de los Santos MJ, Castellò D, Gámiz P, Campos P, Remohí J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1138–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque M, Valle M, Guimaraes F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1190–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celada P, Bosch E, de los Santos MJ, Giles MJ, Pellicer JA. Elective frozen embryo transfer does not improve reproductive outcome in normo-responder patients. Hum Reprod 2015;30:i112–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, Zhang H, Wei D, Zhang Y, et al. Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:126–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vuong LN, Dang VQ, Ho TM, Huynh BG, Ha DT, Pham TD, et al. IVF transfer of fresh or frozen embryos in women without polycystic ovaries. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:137–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:473–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:723–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Fortini D, Selman HA, Feliciani E. Elective cryopreservation of all pronucleate embryos in women at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: efficiency and safety. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1457–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ZJ, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:523–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Prevention and treatment of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1634–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, Simon C, Remohi J, Jenkins J, et al. Circulating progesterone levels and ongoing pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles for in vitro fertilization: analysis of over 4000 cycles. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2092–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Li Z, Zhang H, Jin L, Li Y, Ai J, et al. Serum progesterone level effects on the outcome of in vitro fertilization in patients with different ovarian response: an analysis of more than 10,000 cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1321–7 e1–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connell MT, Patounakis G, Healy MW, DeCherney AH, Devine K, Widra E, et al. Is the effect of premature elevated progesterone augmented by human chorionic gonadotropin versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger?. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:584–9.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yding Andersen C, Bungum L, Nyboe Andersen A, Humaidan P. Preovulatory progesterone concentration associates significantly to follicle number and LH concentration but not to pregnancy rate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:187–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez F, Rodriguez I, Devesa M, Buxaderas R, Gómez MJ, Coroleu B. Should progesterone on the human chorionic gonadotropin day still be measured?. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:86–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labarta E, Martinez-Conejero JA, Alama P, Horcajadas JA, Pellicer A, Simón C, et al. Endometrial receptivity is affected in women with high circulating progesterone levels at the end of the follicular phase: a functional genomics analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1813–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melo MA, Meseguer M, Garrido N, Bosch E, Pellicer A, Remohi J. The significance of premature luteinization in an oocyte-donation programme. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1503–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racca A, Santos-Ribeiro S, De Munck N, Mackens S, Drakopoulos P, Camus M, et al. Impact of late-follicular phase elevated serum progesterone on cumulative live birth rates: is there a deleterious effect on embryo quality. ? Hum Reprod. 2018;33:860–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franasiak JM, Ruiz-Alonso M, Scott RT, Simon C. Both slowly developing embryos and a variable pace of luteal endometrial progression may conspire to prevent normal birth in spite of a capable embryo. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:861–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rackow BW, Jorgensen E, Taylor HS. Endometrial polyps affect uterine receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2690–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galliano D, Bellver J, Díaz-García C, Simón C, Pellicer A. ART and uterine pathology: how relevant is the maternal side for implantation? Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21:13–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vercellini P, Consonni D, Dridi D, Bracco B, Frattaruolo MP, Somigliana E. Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:964–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park CW, Choi MH, Yang KM, Song IO. Pregnancy rate in women with adenomyosis undergoing fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles following gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2016;43:169–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2403–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. Characterization of ovarian follicular wave dynamics in women. Biol Reprod. 2003;69:1023–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sighinolfi G, Sunkara SK, La Marca A. New strategies of ovarian stimulation based on the concept of ovarian follicular waves: from conventional to random and double stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:489–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Colamaria S, Alviggi C, et al. Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1488–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cakmak H, Katz A, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Effective method for emergency fertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1673–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso MCA, Evangelista A, Sartório C, Vaz G, Werneck CLV, Guimarães FM, et al. Can ovarian double-stimulation in the same menstrual cycle improve IVF outcomes? JBRA Assist Reprod 2017;21:217–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• . Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Kato O, Leibo SP. Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:300–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:186–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghobara T, Gelbaya TA, Ayeleke RO. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7:CD003414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenewoud ER, Cohlen BJ, Macklon NS. Programming the endometrium for deferred transfer of cryopreserved embryos: hormone replacement versus modified natural cycles. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:768–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glujovsky D, Pesce R, Fiszbajn G, Sueldo C, Hart RJ, Ciapponi A. Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;CD006359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro DB, Pappadakis JA, Ellsworth NM, Hait HI, Nagy ZP. Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1706–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine K, Richter KS, Widra EA, McKeeby JL. Vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles with the use of only vaginal progesterone replacement with Endometrin have inferior ongoing pregnancy rates: results from the planned interim analysis of a three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:266–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsbjerg B, Polyzos NP, Elbaek HO, Povlsen BB, Andersen CY, Humaidan P. Increasing vaginal progesterone gel supplementation after frozen-thawed embryo transfer significantly increases the delivery rate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:133–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yovich JL, Conceicao JL, Stanger JD, Hinchliffe PM, Keane KN. Mid-luteal serum progesterone concentrations govern implantation rates for cryopreserved embryo transfers conducted under hormone replacement. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:180–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labarta E, Mariani G, Holtmann N, Celada P, Remohi J, Bosch E. Low serum progesterone on the day of embryo transfer is associated with a diminished ongoing pregnancy rate in oocyte donation cycles after artificial endometrial preparation: a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2437–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsbjerg B, Thomsen L, Elbaek HO, Laursen R, Povlsen BB, Haahr T, et al. Progesterone levels on pregnancy test day after hormone replacement therapy-cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles and related reproductive outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:641–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjuresten K, Landgren BM, Hovatta O, Stavreus-Evers A. Luteal phase progesterone increases live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:534–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eftekhar M, Rahsepar M, Rahmani E. Effect of progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Fertil Steril 2013;7:13–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kyrou D, Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B, Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Devroey P. Vaginal progesterone supplementation has no effect on ongoing pregnancy rate in hCG-induced natural frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150:175–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim CH, Lee YJ, Lee KH, Kwon SK, Kim SH, Chae HD, et al. The effect of luteal phase progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2014;57:291–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pinborg A, Henningsen AA, Loft A, Malchau SS, Forman J, Andersen AN. Large baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique?. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:618–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Obstetric outcome in singletons after in vitro fertilization with cryopreserved/thawed embryos. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1343–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelkonen S, Gissler M, Koivurova S, Lehtinen S, Martikainen H, Hartikainen AL, et al. Physical health of singleton children born after frozen embryo transfer using slow freezing: a 3-year follow-up study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2411–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheshwari A, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority anonymized dataset. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1703–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson GD. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:128–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:35–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäkinen S, Söderström-Anttila V, Vainio J, Suikkari A-M, Tuuri T. Does long in vitro culture promote large for gestational age babies? Hum Reprod. 2013;28:828–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikland M, Hardarson T, Hillensjo T, Westin C, Westlander G, Wood M, et al. Obstetric outcomes after transfer of vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1699–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belva F, Bonduelle M, Roelants M, Verheyen G, Van Landuyt L. Neonatal health including congenital malformation risk of 1072 children born after vitrified embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1610–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiura H, Hattori H, Kobayashi N, Okae H, Chiba H, Miyauchi N, et al. Genome-wide microRNA expression profiling in placentae from frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer. Clin Epigenet. 2017;9:79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opdahl S, Henningsen AA, Tiitinen A, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Romundstad PR, et al. Risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology: a cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1724–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrero L, Martinez M, Garcia-Velasco JA. Current status of human oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2011;23:245–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:19–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque M, Valle M, Guimaraes F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Cost-effectiveness of the freeze-all policy. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2015;19:125–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papaleo E, Pagliardini L, Vanni VS, Delprato D, Rubino P, Candiani M, et al. A direct healthcare cost analysis of the cryopreserved versus fresh transfer policy at the blastocyst stage. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34:19–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarek SM, Mumford SL, Segars JH, Armstron AY. Cost effective analysis comparing a freeze-all protocol to fresh blastocyst embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 2014;102:241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le KD, Vuong LN, Ho TM, Dang VQ, Pham TD, Pham CT, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of freeze-only or fresh embryo transfer in IVF of non-PCOS women. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1907–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar