Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 695–700 | Cite as

Comparison of early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after frozen and fresh embryo transfer in ART cycles

  • Abbas Aflatoonian
  • Fatemeh Mansoori Moghaddam
  • Mehri Mashayekhy
  • Farnaz Mohamadian
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



Frozen embryo transfer (FET) has no clear negative impact on neonatal outcome compared with fresh embryo transfer (ET) and appears to result in similar or even better neonatal outcome. The objective of this study was to compare early pregnancy outcome and neonatal health of children born after FET and fresh ET.


In this study early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after FET (n = 200) and fresh ET (n = 500) were compared.


For early pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy was comparable between FET and fresh ET groups. Spontaneous abortion was significantly higher in FET (14.5%) than fresh ET group (9%). Neonatal outcome was comparable between both groups except for lower live birth rate in FET (55%) versus fresh ET group (66%).


FET has similar neonatal outcome in terms of prematurity, low birth weight, stillbirth, neonatal death and major malformation compared with fresh ET.


Frozen-thawed embryo transfer Fresh embryo transfer Pregnancy outcome Neonatal outcome 



The authors are grateful to many colleagues and nursing staff of the Yazd research and clinical center for infertility and Madar hospital for their assistance.


  1. 1.
    Zeilmaker GH, Alberda AT, van Gent I, Rijkmans CM, Drogendijk AC. Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen-thawed embryo. Fertil Steril. 1984;42:293–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wada I, Macnamee MC, Wick K, Bradfield JM, Brinsden PR. Birth characteristics and perinatal outcome of babies conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:543–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wennerholm WB. Cryopreservation of embryos and oocytes: obstetric outcome and health in children. Hum Reprod. 2000;15 Suppl 5:18–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1650–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 after transfer of cryopreserved embryos obtained by ICSI and IVF and comparison with outcome data of fresh ICSI and IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2227–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. Fertil Steril. 2009 Jul 30.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergh C, Werner C, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. Cumulative birth rates following cryopreservation of all embryos in stimulated in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12:191–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hyden-Granskog C, Unkila-Kallio L, Halttunen M, Tiitinen A. Single embryo transfer is an option in frozen embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2935–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sutcliffe AG, D'Souza SW, Cadman J, Richards B, McKinlay IA, Lieberman B. Outcome in children from cryopreserved embryos. Arch Dis Child. 1995;72:290–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wennerholm UB, Hamberger L, Nilsson L, Wennergren M, Wikland M, Bergh C. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of children conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1819–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westergaard HB, Johansen AM, Erb K, Andersen AN. Danish National In-Vitro Fertilization Registry 1994 and 1995: a controlled study of births, malformations and cytogenetic findings. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1896–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pelkonen S, Koivunen R, Gissler M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Suikkari AM, Hyden-Granskog C, et al. Perinatal outcome of children born after frozen and fresh embryo transfer: the Finnish cohort study 1995–2006. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:914–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nyboe Andersen A, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Ferraretti AP, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and intrauterine inseminations in Europe, 2005: results generated from European registers by ESHRE: ESHRE. The European IVF Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1267–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Bergh C, Aittomaki K, Hazekamp J, Nygren KG, et al. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2158–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 Apr 6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:347–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2619–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Van Waesberghe L, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Viability of partially damaged human embryos after cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(9):2006–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salumets A, Suikkari AM, Makinen S, Karro H, Roos A, Tuuri T. Frozen embryo transfers: implications of clinical and embryological factors on the pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2368–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:775–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:1144–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:611–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fedder J, Gabrielsen A, Humaidan P, Erb K, Ernst E, Loft A. Malformation rate and sex ratio in 412 children conceived with epididymal or testicular sperm. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1080–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Baker VL, Ginsburg E, Stern JE. The sex ratio of singleton offspring in assisted-conception pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1579–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abbas Aflatoonian
    • 1
  • Fatemeh Mansoori Moghaddam
    • 1
  • Mehri Mashayekhy
    • 1
  • Farnaz Mohamadian
    • 1
  1. 1.Research and Clinical center for Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyShahid Sadoughi University of Medical ScienceYazdIran

Personalised recommendations