Live birth after fresh versus frozen single blastocyst transfer (Frefro-blastocyst): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Daimin Wei, Yun Sun, Jiayin Liu, Xiaoyan Liang, Yimin Zhu, Yuhua Shi, Zi-Jiang Chen, Daimin Wei, Yun Sun, Jiayin Liu, Xiaoyan Liang, Yimin Zhu, Yuhua Shi, Zi-Jiang Chen

Abstract

Background: Multiple pregnancies are one of the major safety concerns of in vitro fertilization (IVF) due to the increased risk of maternal and neonatal complications. Single embryo transfer is the most effective way to reduce the risk of multiple pregnancies. Selection of the embryo and optimization of the implantation environment are crucial to retain the success rate when the number of transferred embryos is diminished. Fresh embryo transfer with supra-physiological levels of hormones has been suggested to have an adverse effect on implantation. Elective frozen embryo transfer has been suggested to result in a higher rate of live birth than fresh embryo transfer. However, there is still a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety between frozen and fresh single blastocyst transfers.

Methods/design: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial in women aged 20-35 undergoing their first cycle of IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. After ovarian stimulation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol, women who obtain four or more embryos on day 3 of the embryo culture are randomized into two parallel groups: a single fresh blastocyst transfer group and a single frozen blastocyst transfer group (all blastocysts vitrified and a deferred frozen blastocyst transfer). The primary outcome is singleton live birth.

Discussion: The results of this study will provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of the strategy of elective frozen single blastocyst transfer in women with a good prognosis.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IOR-14005405 . Registered on 30 Oct 2014.

Keywords: Blastocyst; Randomized controlled trial; Single embryo transfer; Singleton live birth.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
SPIRIT figure: the schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow chart of subjects

References

    1. Talaulikar VS, Arulkumaran S. Maternal, perinatal and long-term outcomes after assisted reproductive techniques (ART): implications for clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.04.014.
    1. Pandian Z, Marjoribanks J, Ozturk O, Serour G, Bhattacharya S. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7
    1. Bhattacharya S, Kamath MS. Reducing multiple births in assisted reproduction technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(2):191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.11.005.
    1. 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):573–577. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199808273390901.
    1. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):835–842. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050.
    1. Vilska S, Tiitinen A, Hyden-Granskog C, Hovatta O. Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(9):2392–2395. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.9.2392.
    1. McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, de Neubourg D, Dumoulin JC, Gerris J, Kremer JA, Martikainen H, Mol BW, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6945.
    1. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7
    1. Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(11):1139–1146. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa053524.
    1. Santos MA, Kuijk EW, Macklon NS. The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. Reproduction. 2010;139(1):23–34. doi: 10.1530/REP-09-0187.
    1. Horcajadas JA, Riesewijk A, Polman J, van Os R, Pellicer A, Mosselman S, Simon C. Effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF on endometrial gene expression profiles. Mol Hum Reprod. 2005;11(3):195–205. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gah150.
    1. Zhu L, Li Y, Xu A. Influence of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation on uterine peristalsis in infertile women. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2684–2689. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des257.
    1. Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(2):368–77. e1–9.
    1. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive health. Assisted reproductive technology. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports 2012. . Accessed 4 Oct 2014.
    1. Weinerman R, Mainigi M. Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.019.
    1. 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(1):3–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.04.018.
    1. Evans J, Hannan NJ, Edgell TA, Vollenhoven BJ, Lutjen PJ, Osianlis T, Salamonsen LA, Rombauts LJ. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(6):808–821. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu027.
    1. Chen Z-J, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, Yang J, Liu J, Wei D, Weng N, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(6):523–533. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1513873.
    1. Legro RS. Introduction: evidence-based in vitro fertilization treatment of fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: peeling away the layers of the onion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):239–40.
    1. 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(6):1457–1460. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.6.1457.
    1. 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(2):344–8.
    1. 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 transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):516–8.
    1. Fanchin R, Ayoubi JM, Righini C, Olivennes F, Schönauer LM, Frydman R. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1115–1119. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.6.1115.
    1. Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, de Ziegler D, Frydman R. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(7):1968–1974. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.7.1968.
    1. Dar S, Lazer T, Shah PS, Librach CL. Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):439–448. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu001.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe