One Plus One is Better than Two: An Approach Towards a Single Blastocyst Transfer Policy for All IVF Patients

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective It is known that the single embryo transfer (SET) is the best choice to reduce multiples and associated risks. The practice of cryopreserving all embryos for posterior transfer has been increasingly performed for in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients at the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. However, its widespread practice is still controverse. The aim of this study was to evaluate how effective is the transfer of two sequential SET procedures compared with a double embryo transfer (DET) in freeze-only cycles.

Methods This retrospective study reviewed 5,156 IVF cycles performed between 2011 and 2019, and 506 cycles using own oocytes and freeze-only policy with subsequent elective frozen-thawed embryo transfers (eFET) were selected for this study. Cycles having elective SET (eSET, n = 209) comprised our study group and as control group we included cycles performed with elective DET (eDET, n = 291). In the eSET group, 57 couples who had failed in the 1^st eSET had a 2^nd eFET, and the estimated cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was calculated and compared with eDET.

Results After the 1^st eFET, the ongoing pregnancy rates were similar between groups (eSET: 35.4% versus eDET: 38.5%; p = 0.497), but the estimated cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after a 2^nd eFET in the eSET group (eSET + SET) was significantly higher (48.8%) than in the eDET group (p < 0.001). Additionally, the eSET + SET group had a 2.7% rate of multiple gestations, which is significantly lower than the eDET group, with a 30.4% rate (p < 0.001).

Conclusion Our study showed the association of freeze-only strategy with until up to two consecutive frozen-thawed eSETs resulted in higher success rates than a frozen-thawed DET, while drastically reducing the rate of multiple pregnancies.

Resumo

Objetivo Sabe-se que a transferência de embrião único (SET) é a melhor escolha para reduzir as gestações múltiplas e riscos associados. A prática da criopreservação de todos os embriões para transferência posterior tem sido cada vez mais utilizada para fertilização in vitro (FIV), em especial quando há risco de síndrome de hiperestimulação ovariana ou realização de teste genético pré-implantacional. Entretanto, sua utilização disseminada ainda é controversa. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a eficácia de duas SET sequenciais em comparação com uma transferência de embrião dupla (DET) em ciclos de FIV onde todos os embriões foram criopreservados.

Métodos Neste estudo retrospectivo foram revisados 5.156 ciclos de FIV realizados entre 2011 e 2019, e 506 ciclos usando oócitos próprios e criopreservação de todos os embriões com transferências eletivas subsequentes de embriões descongelados, foram selecionados para este estudo. Ciclos com transferência eletiva de embrião único (eSET, n = 209) compuseram nosso grupo de estudo e como grupo de controle incluímos os ciclos com transferência eletiva de dois embriões (eDET, n = 291). No grupo eSET, 57 casais que falharam na 1ª tentativa de eSET tiveram uma 2ª eFET e a taxa de gravidez em curso cumulativa foi estimada para o grupo eSET e comparada com o grupo eDET.

Resultados Após a 1ª eFET, as taxas de gravidez em curso foram semelhantes entre os grupos (eSET: 35,4% versus eDET: 38,5%; p = 0,497), mas a taxa de gravidez em curso cumulativa estimada após a 2ª eFET no grupo eSET (eSET + SET) foi significativamente maior (48,8%) do que no grupo eDET (p < 0,001). Além disso, as taxas de gestação múltipla foram expressivamente inferiores no grupo eSET + SET (2,7%) quando comparado ao grupo eDET (30,4%; p < 0,001).

Conclusão Nosso estudo mostrou que a associação das estratégias de congelamento de todos os embriões com até duas eSETs sequenciais resultou em maiores taxas de sucesso do que uma DET com embriões descongelados, além de reduzir drasticamente a ocorrência de gestações múltiplas.

Contributions

Pedro FM Peregrino: data acquisition and revising the article critically for important intellectual content. Tatiana CS Bonetti: conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article and revising critically for important intellectual content. Alecsandra P Gomes: data acquisition and revising the article critically for important intellectual content. Hamilton de Martin: data acquisition and revising the article critically for important intellectual content. José Maria Soares: revising the article critically for important intellectual content. Edmund C Baracat: revising the article critically for important intellectual content. Pedro AA Monteleone: conception and design; interpretation of data; and revising critically for important intellectual content.

Publication History

Received: 23 June 2021

Accepted: 21 October 2021

Article published online:
16 May 2022

© 2022. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

• References

• 1 Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Otterblad Olausson P. Trends in delivery and neonatal outcome after in vitro fertilization in Sweden: data for 25 years. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (04) 1026-1034 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq003.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (04) 835-842 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Warner L. et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ 2017; 66 (06) 1-24 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6606a1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Stern JE, Baker VL, Widra E. et al. Application of a validated prediction model for in vitro fertilization: comparison of live birth rates and multiple birth rates with 1 embryo transferred over 2 cycles vs 2 embryos in 1 cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (05) 676.e1-676.e7 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.005.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (04) 901-903 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.107.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Cedars MI. Fresh versus frozen: initial transfer or cumulative cycle results: how do we interpret results and design studies?. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (02) 251-256 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.001.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 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 (01) 3-9 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.04.018.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Davenport MJ, Vollenhoven B, Talmor AJ. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist triggering and a freeze-all approach: the final step in eliminating ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome?. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2017; 72 (05) 296-308 DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000432.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Levi-Setti PE, Soscia D, Orlando G, Albani E. et al. Associations of blastocyst features, trophectoderm biopsy and other laboratory practice with post-warming behavior and implantation. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (11) 1992-2001 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey291.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 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 (02) 344-348 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.050.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 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 (06) 523-533 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1513873.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Roque M, Haahr T, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. The ‘Big Freeze’: freeze-all should not be used for everyone. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (08) 1577-1578 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey218.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992; 340 (8810): 17-18 DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92425-f.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Veeck LL. An atlas of human gametes and conceptuses: an illustrated reference for assisted reproductive technology. New York: Parthenon; 1999
  Google Scholar
• 15 Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (06) 1155-1158 DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00518-5.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Adamson GD, Norman RJ. Why are multiple pregnancy rates and single embryo transfer rates so different globally, and what do we do about it?. Fertil Steril 2020; 114 (04) 680-689 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.003.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A. et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004; 351 (23) 2392-2402 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa041032.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 López-Regalado ML, Clavero A, Gonzalvo MC, Serrano M, Martínez L, Mozas J. et al. Randomised clinical trial comparing elective single-embryo transfer followed by single-embryo cryotransfer versus double embryo transfer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 178: 192-198 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.04.009.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Leniaud L, Poncelet C, Porcher R, Martin-Pont B, Cédrin-Durnerin I, Hugues JN. et al. [Prospective evaluation of elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization: a two-year French hospital experience]. Gynécol Obstét Fertil 2008; 36 (02) 159-165 DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2007.12.004. French.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 He QH, Wang L, Liang LL, Zhang HL, Zhang CL, Li HS. et al. Clinical outcomes of frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer in patients requiring whole embryo freezing. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2016; 62 (02) 133-138 DOI: 10.3109/19396368.2015.1128991.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Kuroda K, Ezoe K, Kato K, Yabuuchi A, Segawa T, Kobayashi T. et al. Infertility treatment strategy involving combined freeze-all embryos and single vitrified-warmed embryo transfer during hormonal replacement cycle for in vitro fertilization of women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2018; 44 (05) 922-928 DOI: 10.1111/jog.13597.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Eubanks AA, DeAngelis A, Healy MW, Saunders RD, Torrealday S, Decherney AH. et al. The continued push towards eliminating twin pregnancy: the clinical impact of the 2017 ASRM embryo transfer guidelines. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (3, Suppl) E146 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.502.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Sigalos GΑ, Triantafyllidou O, Vlahos NF. Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 294 (06) 1117-1124 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-016-4196-5.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Kliman HJ, Frankfurter D. Clinical approach to recurrent implantation failure: evidence-based evaluation of the endometrium. Fertil Steril 2019; 111 (04) 618-628 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.02.011.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Teh WT, McBain J, Rogers P. What is the contribution of embryo-endometrial asynchrony to implantation failure?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33 (11) 1419-1430 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0773-6.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Gómez E, Ruíz-Alonso M, Miravet J, Simón C. Human endometrial transcriptomics: implications for embryonic implantation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2015; 5 (07) a022996 DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a022996.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Garrido-Gómez T, Quiñonero A, Antúnez O, Díaz-Gimeno P, Bellver J, Simón C. et al. Deciphering the proteomic signature of human endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (09) 1957-1967 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu171.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Moreno I, Simon C. Deciphering the effect of reproductive tract microbiota on human reproduction. Reprod Med Biol 2018; 18 (01) 40-50 DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12249.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Bassil R, Casper R, Samara N, Hsieh TB, Barzilay E, Orvieto R. et al. Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35 (07) 1301-1305 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1190-9.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM. et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23 (02) 139-155 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmw038.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Zeng M, Su S, Li L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35 (01) 127-134 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-017-1040-1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Zhu Q, Chen Q, Wang L, Lu X, Lyu Q, Wang Y. et al. Live birth rates in the first complete IVF cycle among 20 687 women using a freeze-all strategy. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (05) 924-929 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey044.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Bergh C, Kamath MS, Wang R, Lensen S. Strategies to reduce multiple pregnancies during medically assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2020; 114 (04) 673-679 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.022.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar