Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 1353–1356 | Cite as

Comparison of the clinical outcomes between fresh blastocyst and vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer

  • Pei-Yun Ku
  • Robert Kuo-Kuang Lee
  • Shyr-Yeu Lin
  • Ming-Huei Lin
  • Yuh-Ming Hwu
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



To compare the clinical outcomes between fresh and vitrified-thawed day 5 blastocyst transfers.


Retrospective case control study.


Tertiary referral center.


Patients 38 years of age or less who underwent IVF/ICSI cycles with fresh or frozen-thawed blastocysts transferred from June 1, 2009 to November 30, 2011


Vitrification and thawing of day 5 blastocysts using the Cryotop method. (Kitazato BioPharma Co., Ltd., Fuji city, Shizuoka, Japan)

Main outcome measure(s)

Clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and multiple pregnancy rates.


Of the 118 cycles in the fresh transfer group, 234 blastocysts were transferred. The clinical pregnancy rate was 66.1 % and implantation rate was 50.9 %. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 56.8 % and the rates for singleton and twin pregnancies were 53.7 % and 44.8 %. Of the 59 cycles in the vitrified-thawed group, 111 blastocysts were transferred. The clinical pregnancy rate was 59.3 % and implantation rate was 43.2 %. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 47.5 % and the rates for singleton and twin pregnancies were 60.7 % and 39.3 %. The clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the two groups.


The implantation rates were not significantly different between the fresh and the vitrified-thawed groups. Thus, single embryo transfer may be considered in fresh cycles to decrease multiple pregnancy rates. The surplus embryos should be vitrified for the frozen embryo transfer to improve the cumulative pregnancy rate.


Vitrification Blastocyst Implantation Pregnancy 


  1. 1.
    Gardner DK, Balaban B. Choosing between day 3 and day 5 embryo transfers. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:85–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuleshova LL, Lopata A. Vitrification can be more favorable than slow cooling. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:449–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang EM, Han JE, Kim YS, et al. Use of the natural cycle and vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer results in better in-vitro fertilization outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28:369–74.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;27:357–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, et al. 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;96:344–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hong SW, Sepilian V, Chung HM, Kim TJ. Cryopreserved human blastocysts after vitrification result in excellent implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:2062–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fatemi HM, Kyrou D, Bourgain C, et al. Cryopreserved-thawed human embryo transfer: spontaneous natural cycle is superior to human chorionic gonadotropin–induced natural cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2054–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zegers-Hochschild F, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1520–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuc P, Kuczyñska A, et al. Vitrification vs. slow cooling protocol using embryos cryopreserved in the 5th or 6th day after oocyte retrieval and IVF outcomes. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2010;48:84–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rall WF, Fahy GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at −196 °C by vitrification. Nature. 1985;313:573–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larman MG, Katz-Jaffe MG, et al. Analysis of global gene expression following mouse blastocyst cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2011;10:2672–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S, et al. Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles—time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1691–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, et al. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1436–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haouzi D, Assou S, Dechanet C, et al. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization alters endometrial receptivity in humans: protocol effects. Biol Reprod. 2010;82:679–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pei-Yun Ku
    • 1
  • Robert Kuo-Kuang Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shyr-Yeu Lin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  • Ming-Huei Lin
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yuh-Ming Hwu
    • 1
    • 4
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMackay Memorial HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Medical ResearchMackay Memorial HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Mackay MedicineNursing and Management CollegeTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical SciencesChung Shan Medical UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  6. 6.Department of Biological Science and TechnologyNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan
  7. 7.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMackay Memorial HospitalTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations