Abstract
Purpose
To study the influence of post-thawed culture (2–4 h and 20–24 h) on the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle.
Methods
In this retrospective study, a total of 1,353 patients were undergoing the FET treatment at the reproductive medical center between June 2010 and July 2012. 3,398 frozen-thawed embryos were divided in two study groups, depending on their post-thawed culture period: short culture (2–4 h) group and long culture (20–24 h) group. Groups were compared including clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, spontaneous abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, live birth rate and birth weight.
Results
When embryos including at least one grade I embryo after thawed transferred, the clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, multiple pregnancy rate, abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, live birth rate and birth weight were similar in the short culture group compared with these in the long culture group.
Conclusions
The outcomes of the two approaches (short culture and long culture) are no different in FET cycles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Zeilmaker GH, Alberda AT, van Gent I, Rijkmans CM, Drogendijk AC. Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen-thawed embryos. Fertil Steril. 1984;42(2):293–6.
Sifer C, Sellami A, Poncelet C, Martin-Pont B, Porcher R, Hugues JN, et al. Day 3 compared with day 2 cryopreservation does not affect embryo survival but improves the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5):1537–40.
Mocanu EV, Cottell E, Waite K, Hennelly B, Collins C, Harrison RF. Frozen-thawed transfer cycles: are they comparable with fresh? Ir Med J. 2008;101(6):181–4.
Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomized controlled study of human Day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(9):1976–82.
Vajta G, Nagy ZP. Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(6):779–96.
Wang XL, Zhang X, Qin YQ, Hao DY, Shi HR. Outcomes of day 3 embryo transfer with vitrification using Cryoleaf: a 3-year follow-up study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(9):883–9.
Stehlik E, Stehlik J, Katayama KP, Kuwayama M, Jambor V, Brohammer R, et al. Vitrification demonstrates significant improvement versus slow freezing of human blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11(1):53–7.
Shi X, Chen S, Zheng H, Wang L, Wu Y. Aberrant DNA methylation of imprinted loci in human in vitro matured oocytes after long agonist stimulation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167(1):64–8.
Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2571–84.
Ashwood-Smith MJ, Morris GW, Fowler R, Appleton TC, Ashorn R. Physical factors are involved in the destruction of embryos and oocytes during freezing and thawing procedures. Hum Reprod. 1988;3(6):795–802.
Lan KC, Huang FJ, Lin YC, Kung FT, Hsieh CH, Huang HW, et al. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1299–306.
Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Gambardella L, Giusti A, Grugnetti C, Corani G. Objective way to support embryo transfer: a probabilistic decision. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(5):1210–20.
Guerif F, Bidault R, Cadoret V, Couet ML, Lansac J, Royere D. Parameters guiding selection of best embryos for transfer after cryopreservation: a reappraisal. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(5):1321–6.
Edgar DH, Bourne H, Speirs AL, McBain JC. A quantitative analysis of the impact of cryopreservation on the implantation potential of human early cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(1):175–9.
Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1513–21.
Rato ML, Gouveia-Oliveira A, Plancha CE. Influence of post-thaw culture on the developmental potential of human frozen embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(8):789–95.
Joshi BV, Banker MR, Patel PM, Shah PB. Transfer of human frozen-thawed embryos with further cleavage during culture increases pregnancy rates. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2010;3(2):76–9.
Shi W, Zhang S, Zhao W, Xia X, Wang M, Wang H, Bai H, Shi J. Factors related to clinical pregnancy after vitrified-warmed embryo transfer: a retrospective and multivariate logistic regression analysis of 2313 transfer cycles. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(7):1768–75.
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):573–7.
van Montfoort AP, Fiddelers AA, Janssen JM, Derhaag JG, Dirksen CD, Dunselman GA, et al. In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(2):338–43.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the President Foundation of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University (Grant No.2012C025).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Capsule The clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, multiple pregnancy rate, abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, live birth rate and birth weight were similar in the short culture (2-4 h) group and the long culture (20-24 h) group.
Lei Guo and Chen Luo contributed equally to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guo, L., Luo, C., Quan, S. et al. The outcome of different post-thawed culture period in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 1589–1594 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0120-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0120-0