Comparison of Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes in Frozen and Fresh Embryo Transfer in ART Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Document Type: Original Research Article

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Urmia Reproductive Health Research Center, Urmia, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Urmia Reproductive Health Research Center, Urmia, Iran

3 Medical Doctor, Department of Emergency, Valiasr Hospital, Meshkin Shahr, Iran

4 BSc in Nursing, Department of In Vitro Fertilization, Motahary Hospital, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran

5 MSc in Epidemiology, Clinical Research Development Unit of imam Hospital ,Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia ,Iran

6 MSc in Midwifery, Reproductive Health Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

10.22038/jmrh.2020.45772.1555

Abstract

Background & aim: In addition to the benefits of frozen embryo transfer (FET), the key question is whether freezing or melting embryos can cause fetal harm and prenatal complications. This study aimed to assess pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after FET and fresh embryo transfer (ET).
Methods: This retrospective cohort study investigated the pregnancy outcomes of infertile women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection with FET and ET in Kowsar Infertility Center of Motahary hospital in Urmia, Iran between March 2014 and March 2016. A questionnaire was completed based on the hospital records of pregnancy or neonatal outcomes. To assess the continuation of pregnancy and delivery, the questionnaires were completed through phone call. The pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were compared between FET (n=96) and fresh ET (n=93) using Student’s t-test, Chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests and multiple logistic regression using SPSS software (version 21.0).
Results: The rate of ongoing pregnancy were reported as 60.2% and 76% in the FET and fresh ET groups, respectively. The rate of multiple pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy were lower in FET, compared to those reported for fresh ET (OR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.18-0.79, P=0.01; OR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.85, P=0.02). The frequency of spontaneous abortion was not different between two groups (P=0.07). The FET and fresh ET increased the odds of lower neonatal weight; however, it was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: In this study, a lower rate of ongoing pregnancy was reported in the FET group. It seems that FET can cause damage to the embryo during freezing and melting. 

Keywords


Introduction


     The first live birth after frozen embryo transfer (FET) was reported in 1984, and this method has been gradually used in assisted reproductive technology (ART) (1). One of the most important in vitro fertilization (IVF) programs is embryo cryopreservation; however, there are limited studies on the evaluation of the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of neonates born after the FET cycle (2–7). The incidence rates of prematurity, low birth weight (LBW), and neonatal mortality were matched in two FET and fresh embryo transfer (ET) groups (5). Decreasing the risk of multiple pregnancy and hyperstimulation syndrome and increasing the use of single embryo transfer in the FET cycle and pregnancy rates were reported in multiple studies (8). In addition, the rate of major abnormalities in the neonates born after FET is similar to those of fresh ET and in children after spontaneous conception (10–12).

    The prevalence of abortion in FET is higher than that reported for fresh ET (13) which is in line with the results of a study carried out by Liu et al. (14). Furthermore, the FET method was reported with higher safety and cost-effectiveness and better outcomes for neonates than the ET method; nevertheless, the reasons for better outcomes are not clear (15). In the FET cycle, because ovarian stimulation is not used, the estrogen levels remain according to the physiology of the body; therefore, high estrogenic effects on endometrial and implantation will not be observed (16). Moreover, the endometrial arrangement may be achieved using estradiol and progestrone, and the development of the endometrium can be controlled more accurately than the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) cycles with gonadotropins (17, 18).

    In addition to the benefits of FET, the key question is whether freezing or melting these embryos can cause fetal harm and prenatal complications in pregnancy. In addition, reducing the rate of cooling injury can increase the rate of embryo survival (19, 20). Some studies have shown the increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in the ET cycle (21–23). Therefore, according to different results of studies on FET and ET (10-13), the present study aimed to compare the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of the two FET and ET groups.

Materials and Methods

    This retrospective cohort study was carried out on 250 women after the transfer of embryo (i.e., fresh or frozen) in Kowsar Infertility Center of Motahary hospital in Urmia, Iran, within March 2014 to March 2016. The subjects with the age of over 40 years, history of abortion, premature labor, uterine anomalies, underlying medical conditions (e.g., chronic blood pressure, diabetes, and lupus) were excluded from the study. Then, all of the included participants were followed up to the end of pregnancy outcomes. The participants were divided into two groups of FET (n=96) and ET (n=93).

    In all patients, ovarian stimulation was performed using recombinant or urinary follicle-stimulating hormone or human menopausal gonadotrophin combination with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Two or four embryos with the best morphology were selected and transferred based on (19) the criteria of excellent or good quality. The vitrification method was used in the 4-8 cell stage for freezing the embryo.

    A questionnaire was completed based on hospital records about pregnancy or neonatal outcomes. To determine the continuation of pregnancy and delivery, the questionnaires were completed through phone calls. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Urmia University of Medical Sciences (IR.UMSU.rec.1395.207). The outcome variables included ongoing pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, abortion, preterm labor (<34 weeks), neonatal birth weight, intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD), multiple pregnancy, congenital malformation, and live birth.

    Differences between fresh FET and ET variables were analyzed using the Studentʼs t-test for normally distributed continuous variables and Chi-square and Fisherʼs exact tests for categorical variables. Multiple logistic regression was used for binary outcomes. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 21.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

    Table 1 shows that maternal age distribution is similar between the two groups.

 The mean values of the number of ETs were 3.75±1.35 and 2.76±0.88 in the fresh ET and FET groups, respectively. Moreover, out of 95 pregnancies in the fresh ET group, 73 pregnancies (76%) were continued. In addition, out of 87 pregnancy (60.2%) in the FET group, 56 pregnancies were continued. In the fresh ET and FET groups, the numbers of live births were reported as 102 (30.45%) and 67 (27.45%), respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.43).

    According to Table 2, 1 ectopic pregnancy (1%) and 22 abortions (23%) were observed in the fresh ET group. Moreover, out of 93 pregnancies, 6 ectopic pregnancies (6.5%) and 31 abortions (35.6%) were reported in the FET group.

Table 2 shows the odds ratios of pregnancy outcomes and types of transferred embryos (i.e.,

frozen and fresh). The odds of abortion were higher in the FET group, compared to those of the fresh ET group (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 0.96-3.51) with borderline statistical significance (P=0.07).

    The FET decreased the odds of ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy in comparison to fresh ET. The odds of multiple pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy were lower in the FET, compared to those reported for fresh ET (OR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.18-0.79, P=0.01; OR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.85, P=0.02). The rates of third trimester bleeding and preterm labor were lower in the FET in comparison to those reported for fresh ET (OR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.39-1.84, P=0.67; OR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.8-2.13, P=0.29), but not statistically significant.

     The rates of maternal hypertension and neonatal anomalies were higher in the FET, compared to those reported for fresh ET (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 0.96-3.51, P=0.07; OR=1.31, 95% CI: 0.18-9.63, P=0.78); however, they were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The FET in IVF patients increased the odds of lower neonatal weight, compared to fresh ET, but not statistically significant (for all the categories of neonatal birth weight and neonatal birth weight of 2500≤ as a reference category; P> 0.05). In addition, IUFD was reported in 1.4% and 6.5% of the patients with fresh ET and FET, respectively. Furthermore, ectopic pregnancy was observed in 1% and 6.5% of the participants with fresh ET and FET, respectively. The odds of IUFD and ectopic pregnancy were not reported in Table 2 due to low frequency.

Discussion

    In this study, the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups of FET and ET. The results of the present study showed that the rates of multiple pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and neonatal birth weight were lower in the FET group in comparison to those reported for the fresh ET group. In addition, abortion, maternal hypertension, and neonatal anomalies were higher in the FET group, compared to those of the fresh ET group. However, abortion and maternal hypertension had borderline statistical significance.

A systematic review showed a higher rate of ongoing pregnancy in fresh ET, compared to that reported for FET (25) that is consistent with the results of the present study. These results may be achieved by the improvement of endometrial synchrony instead of the COH cycles in fresh cycles (25). The results of the current study demonstrated a higher rate of spontaneous abortion in the FET group, compared to that reported for the ET group, with borderline statistical significance. This finding is consistent with the results of studies conducted by Van Steirteghem et al., Liu et al., and Aflatoonian et al. (13, 14, 24). However, in a study carried out by Belva et al., the abortion rate was similar between the two groups (5). It can be concluded that FET can cause damage to the embryo during the freezing and melting.

    The rate of preterm labor was lower in the FET group than that of the fresh ET group, but not statistically significant. By increasing the sample size, this difference may be statistically significant. Additionally, in some studies, the lower rates of preterm birth and LBW were reported in FET compared to those of fresh ET in a singleton pregnancy (6, 7, 15, 26, 27). The findings of the aforementioned studies are consistent with the results of the present study. Regarding neonatal outcomes, the present study showed that neonatal birth weight was lower in the FET in comparison to that of fresh ET, but not statistically significant (P>0.05)

    In another study, FET has similar neonatal outcomes, including LBW, stillbirth, neonatal prematurity, neonatal mortality, and congenital malformation, compared to fresh ET (13 (. A study carried out by Zhang et al. and other studies reported a higher neonatal birth weight and higher rates of macrosomia and large for gestational age in the FET cycle than those reported for fresh ET in normal pregnancy (28-32). However, the findings of the present study are not consistent with the results of multiple clinical studies in this regard (33-36).

    The difference in the results probably may be due to the higher odds of maternal hypertension in the present study in FET, compared to those of fresh ET; therefore, pregnancy complications would have had a significant effect on neonatal outcomes. Accordingly, in other studies consistent with the current study (33-36), the two methods were compared in high-risk patients, such as the subjects with chronic hypertension and preeclampsia. In the present study, it was also observed that FET was associated with higher odds of maternal hypertension than fresh ET which may be related to the type of study and those at risk. In the current study, the birth weight of newborns in the FET group was lower due to the increased maternal hypertension; however, it is not statistically significant.

    The present study showed that the rate of neonatal anomalies was higher in the FET group, compared to that reported for the fresh ET group; however, it was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Nevertheless, several studies showed that FET seems similar to fresh ET in this regard (6, 13, 24). A recent study reported that the rate of major abnormalities in FET was higher than that of fresh ET. The reason for this difference could be due to differences in the day of freezing, type of cryopreservation protocols, number or quality of frozen transferred embryos (5). However, Wada et al. reported that the rate of major malformation in the FET group was significantly lower than that reported for the standard IVF group (2).

    A large study conducted on frozen embryos concluded that freezing does not cause genetic changes and an increase in fetal abnormalities (37). In addition, a study carried out by AbdelHafez reported a higher uterine receptivity in the FET cycle than fresh ET (38). Consequently, it is required to perform further thorough studies to evaluate the effect of freezing and thawing methods and clinical factors on implantation and fetal growth due to different results.

    The limitations of the present study included the retrospective design, inadequate sample size, and collection of data from a single public IVF center in Urmia, and no control of confounding variables (e.g., LBW and neonatal gender). Accordingly, it is recommended to consider the limitations of the current study and perform further randomized control trials and follow-up studies on the long-term outcomes of children born in two groups of FET and ET in order to determine the effectiveness of each method.

Conclusion

     The rates of pregnancy outcomes, such as multiple pregnancy, were lower in the FET group, compared to those reported for the fresh ET group. The rates of abortion and maternal hypertension were higher in the FET cycle, but with borderline statistical significance. The obtained results of the present study showed that FET had a lower rate of ongoing pregnancy. The FET can cause damage to the embryo during freezing and melting. Therefore, it is required to carry out further randomized clinical trials for the assessment of endometrial receptivity and ART outcomes.

Acknowledgements

    This paper was extracted from an MD thesis and approved by Urmia University of Medical Sciences (IR.UMSU.rec.1395.207). The authors would like to express their gratitude to Kowsar Infertility Center of Motahary hospital in Urmia affiliated to Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Valiasr Reproductive Health Research Center, and Tehran University of Medical Sciences for their cooperation with this study. It should be noted that there was no association between the authors and any organization or institution.

Conflicts of interest

Authors declared no conflicts of interest.

1.  Zeilmaker GH, Alberda AT, van Gent I, Rijkmans CM, DrogendijkAC. Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozenthawed embryo. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 1984; 42(2): 293–6. PMID: 6745463

2. Wada I, Macnamee MC, Wick K, Bradfield JM, Brinsden PR.Birth characteristics and perinatal outcome of babies conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Human Reproduction Journal. 1994; 9(3): 543–6. PMID:  8006149

3. Wennerholm WB. Cryopreservation of embryos and oocytes:obstetric outcome and health in children. Human Reproduction Journal. 2000; 15(Suppl 5):18–25. PMID:11263534

4. Wang YA, Sullivan EA, Black D, Dean J, Bryant J, Chapman M. Preterm birth and low birth weight after assisted reproductivetechnology-related pregnancy in Australia between 1996 and 2000. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2005; 83(6):1650–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.12.033

5. Belva F, Henriet S, Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Devroey P, Van der Elst J, et al. Neonatal outcome of 937 children born aftertransfer of cryopreserved embryos obtained by ICSI and IVF and comparison with outcome data of fresh ICSI and IVF cycles. Human Reproduction Journal. 2008; 23(10): 2227–38. DOI: 10.1093/ humrep/ den254

6. Shih W, Rushford DD, Bourne H, Garrett C, McBain JC, Healy DL, et al. Factors affecting low birthweight after assistedreproduction technology: difference between transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos suggests an adverse effect of oocytecollection. Human Reproduction Journal. 2008; 23(7): 1644–53. DOI: 10.1093/ humrep/den150

7. Pinborg A, Loft A, Aaris Henningsen AK, Rasmussen S, Nyboe Andersen A. Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: The Danish National Cohort Study 1995–2006. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2009; 94(4): 1320-7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.091

8. Bergh C, Werner C, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. Cumulative birth ratesfollowing cryopreservation of all embryos in stimulated in vitrofertilization (IVF) cycles. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 1995; 12(3): 191–4. PMID:8520184

9. Hyden-Granskog C, Unkila-Kallio L, Halttunen M, Tiitinen A. Single embryo transfer is an option in frozen embryo transfer. Human Reproduction Journal. 2005; 20(10): 2935–8. DOI: 10.1093/ humrep/dei133

10. Sutcliffe AG, D'Souza SW, Cadman J, Richards B, McKinlay IA,Lieberman B. Outcome in children from cryopreserved embryos. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 1995; 72(4): 290–3. PMID:7763057

11. Wennerholm UB, Hamberger L, Nilsson L, Wennergren M,WiklandM, Bergh C. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of children conceivedfrom cryopreserved embryos. Human Reproduction Journal. 1997; 12(8): 1819–25.

12. Westergaard HB, Johansen AM, Erb K, Andersen AN. DanishNational In-Vitro Fertilization Registry 1994 and 1995: a controlled study of births, malformations and cytogenetic findings. Human Reproduction Journal 1999; 14(7): 1896–902. PMID: 10402414

13. Aflatoonian A, Moghaddam FM, Mashayekhy M, Mohamadian F. Comparison of early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after frozen and fresh embryo transfer in ART cycles. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2010;2 7(12): 695-700. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-010-9470-z

14. Liu L, Tong X, Jiang L, Li T, Zhou F, Zhang S. A comparison of implantation, miscarriage and pregnancy rates of single and double day 3 embryo transfer between fresh and frozen thawed transfer cycles: a retrospective study. Chinese Medical Journal. 2013; 127(5): 911-5 PMID: 24571887

15. Pelkonen S, Koivunen R, Gissler M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, SuikkariAM, Hyden-Granskog C, et al. Perinatal outcome of children bornafter frozen and fresh embryo transfer: the Finnish cohort study1995–2006. Human Reproduction Journal. 2010; 25(4): 914–23. DOI: 10.1093/ humrep/ dep477

16. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S.High ongoing pregnancy rates after deferred transfer through bipronuclearoocyte cryopreservation and post-thaw extended culture. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2009; 92(5): 1594–9. DOI: 10.1016/ j.fertnstert.2008.08.103

17. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguire M, Thomas S. Large blastocyst diamete, early blastulation, and low preovulatory serum progesterone are dominant predictors of clinical pregnancy in fresh autologous cycles. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2008; 90(2): 302–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.062

18. Richter KS, Shipley SK, McVearry I, Tucker MJ, Widra EA. Cryopreserved embryo transfers suggest that endometrial receptivity may contribute to reduced success rates of later developing embryos. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2006; 86 (4): 862–6.

19. Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Can freshembryo transfers be replaced by cryopreserved-thawed embryotransfers in assisted reproductive cycles? A randomized controlledtrial. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2009; 11(suppl 1): 23.

20. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Movaghar B.Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo  morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2009; 26(6): 347-54. doi: 10.1007/s10815-009-9318-6.

21. Griesinger G, von Otte S, Schroer A, Ludwig AK, Diedrich K, Al-Hasani S,et al. Elective cryopreservation of all pronuclear oocytes after GnRH agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in patients at risk of developing OHSS:a prospective, observational proof-of-concept study. Human Reproduction Journal.  2007; 22(5): 1348–52. DOI: 10.1093/ humrep/ dem006

22. d'Angelo A. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention strategies: cryopreservation of all embryos. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine. 2010; 28(6): 513–8. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1265679

23. Griesinger G, Schultz L, Bauer T, Broessner A, Frambach T, Kissler S. Ovarian  hyperstimulation syndrome prevention by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in combination with a "freeze-all" strategy: a prospective multicentric study. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2011; 95(6): 2029-33, 2033.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.163.

24. Van Steirteghem AC, Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Joris H,Camus M, Devroey P. Cryopreservation of supernumerary multicellular human embryos obtained after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 1994; 62(4): 775–80.

25.Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, Checa MA. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2013; 99(1): 156-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.003

26.Wang YA, Sullivan EA, Black D, Dean J, Bryant J, Chapman M. Preterm birth and low birth weight after assisted reproductive technology-related pregnancy in Australia between 1996 and 2000. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2005; 83(6): 1650–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.12.033

27. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitrofertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVFfertilization methods. Fertility and  Sterility  Journal. 2005; 84(3): 611–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.038

28. Zhang J, Du M, Li Z, Wang L, Hu J, Zhao B, Feng Y, Chen X, Sun L. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for full-term singleton birth: a retrospective cohort study. Journal of Ovarian Research. 2018; 11(1): 59. doi: 10.1186/s13048-018-0432-x

29.Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Obstetric outcome in singletons after in vitro fertilization with cryopreserved/thawed embryos. Human Reproduction Journal. 2012; 27(5): 1343–1350. doi: 10.1093/ humrep/des036

30. Wennerholm UB, Henningsen AK, Romundstad LB, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Skjaerven R, et al. Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Human Reproduction Journal. 2013; 28(9) :2545–2553. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det272.

31.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. Human Reproduction Journal. 2016; 31(7): 1610–1620. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew103.

32.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. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016; 375(6): 523–533. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1513873

33.Yen TA, Yang HI, Hsieh WS, Chou HC, Chen CY, Tsou KI, et al. Preeclampsia and the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in VLBW infants: a population based study. PLoS One. 2013; 8(9): e75168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075168

34.Yee LM, Caughey AB, Cheng YW. Association between gestational weight gain and perinatal outcomes in women with chronic hypertension. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 217(3): 348. doi: 10.1016/ j.ajog.2017.05.016

35. Kc K, Shakya S, Zhang H. Gestational diabetes   mellitus and macrosomia: a literature review. Ann Nutr Metab. 2015; 66(Suppl 2): 14–20. doi: 10.1159/000371628.

36.Catalano PM. Obesity, insulin resistance, and pregnancy outcome. Reproduction. 2010; 140(3): 365–371. doi: 10.1530/REP-10-0088.

37. Aytoz A, Van den Abbeel E, Bonduelle M, Camus M, Joris H, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Obstetric outcome of pregnancies after the transfer of cryopreserved and fresh embryos obtained by conventional in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection . Human Reproduction Update. 1999; 14(10): 2619-24. PMID: 10527997

38. AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic reviewand metaanalysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2010; 20: 209–22. DOI: 10.1016/ j.rbmo.2009.11.013