Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agonist depot versus OCP programming of frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis of freeze-all cycles

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In segmented ART treatment or so-called ‘freeze-all’ strategy fresh embryo transfer is deferred, embryos cryopreserved, and the embryo transferred in a subsequent frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle. The purpose of this cohort study was to compare a GnRHa depot with an oral contraceptive pill (OCP) programming protocol for the scheduling of an artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) after oocyte pick-up (OPU).

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted on prospectively performed segmented ART cycles performed between September 2014 and April 2015. The pregnancy, treatment duration, and cycle cancellation outcomes of 170 OCP programmed AC-FET cycles were compared with 241 GnRHa depot programmed AC-FET cycles.

Results

No significant difference was observed in the per transfer pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates between the OCP and GnRHa groups, 72.0 versus 77.2 %, and 57.8 versus 64.3 %, respectively. Furthermore, the early pregnancy loss rate was non-significantly different between the OCP and GnRH protocol groups, 19.8 versus 16.7 %, respectively. However, nine (5.29 %) cycles were cancelled due to high progesterone in the OCP protocol group, while no cycles were cancelled in the GnRHa protocol group and the time taken between OPU and FET was 19 days longer (54.7 vs 35.6 days) in the OCP protocol compared to the GnRHa protocol.

Conclusions

The results of this AC-FET programming study suggests that the inclusion of GnRHa depot cycle programming into a segmented ART treatment will ensure pregnancy, while significantly reducing treatment duration and cycle cancellation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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;102:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S, Zhang J, Heng BC, Huang M, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2593–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pinborg A. To transfer fresh or thawed embryos? Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30:230–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Xu B, Li Z, Zhang H, Jin L, Li Y, Ai J, et al. Serum progesterone level effects on the outcome of in vitro fertilization in patients with different ovarian response: an analysis of more than 10,000 cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1321–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Farhi J, Haroush AB, Andrawus N, Pinkas H, Sapir O, Fisch B, et al. High serum oestradiol concentrations in IVF cycles increase the risk of pregnancy complications related to abnormal placentation. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;21:331–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pinborg A, Loft A, Henningsen AA, Rasmussen S, Nyboe Andersen A. Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: The Danish National Cohort Study 1995–2006. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1320–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:368–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Soderstrom-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:87–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Sola I, Psych B, Geber S, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:156–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wennerholm U-B, Henningsen A-KA, 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. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2545–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson GD. Impact of frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:128–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Weinerman R, Mainigi M. Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:10–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reichman DE, Chung P, Meyer L, Greenwood E, Davis O, Rosenwaks Z. Consecutive gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonist in vitro fertilization cycles: does the elapsed time interval between successive treatments affect outcomes? Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1277–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ozgur K, Berkkanoglu M, Bulut H, Humaidan P, Coetzee K. Perinatal outcomes after fresh versus vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer—a retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:899–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AEP, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:458–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Garcia-Velasco JA, Fatemi HM. To pill or not to pill in GnRH antagonist cycles: that is the question! Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30:39–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Griesinger G, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis B, Kolibianakis EM. To pill or not to pill in GnRH-antagonist cycles: the answer is in the data already! Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31:6–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1999;11:307–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Toward reproductive certainty: fertility and genetics beyond 1999. London: Parthenon Publishing; 1999. p. 378–88.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Isikoglu M, Ozdem S, Berkkanoglu M, Jamal H, Senturk Z, Ozgur K. Single-dose depot leuprolide is as efficient as daily short-acting leuprolide in ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1657–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van de Vijver A, Polyzos NP, Van Landuyt L, De Vos M, Camus M, Stoop D, et al. Cryopreserved embryo transfer in an artificial cycle: is GnRH agonist down-regulation necessary? Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:588–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bermejo A, Iglesias C, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Simon C, Pellicer A, et al. The impact of using the combined oral contraceptive pill for cycle scheduling on gene expression related to endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1271–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Labarta E, MartÍnez-Conejero JA, Alama P, Horcajadas JA, Pellicer A, Simon C, et al. Endometrial receptivity is affected in women with high circulating progesterone levels at the end of the follicular phase: a functional genomics analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1813–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pinkas H, Sapir O, Ori M, Avrech OM, Ben-Haroush A, Ashkenzi J, et al. The effect of oral contraceptive pill for cycle scheduling prior to GnRH-antagonist protocol on IVF cycle parameters and pregnancy outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25:29–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dain L, Bider D, Levron J, Zinchenko V, Westler S, Dirnfeld M. Thin endometrium in donor oocyte recipients: enigma or obstacle for implantation? Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1289–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm U-B, Bergh C. Obstetric outcome in singletons after in vitro fertilization with cryopreserved/thawed embryos. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pinborg A, Henningsen AA, Loft A, Malchau SS, Forman J, Nyboe Andersen A. Large baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique? Hum Reprod. 2014;29:618–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rimoldi SF, Sartori C, Rexhaj E, Cerny D, von Arx R, Soria R, et al. Vascular dysfunction in children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies: underlying mechanisms and future implications. Swiss Med Wkly. 2014;144:w13973.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Antalya IVF, Antalya, 07080, Turkey

    Kemal Ozgur, Murat Berkkanoglu, Hasan Bulut & Kevin Coetzee

  2. The Fertility Clinic, Skive Regional Hospital and Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, 7800, Denmark

    Peter Humaidan

Authors
  1. Kemal Ozgur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Murat Berkkanoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hasan Bulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Humaidan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kevin Coetzee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Coetzee.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Trial registration number

N/A.

Additional information

Capsule

No significant differences were observed in the per transfer pregnancy rates and early pregnancy loss rates when either OCP or GnRHa was used to program FET.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozgur, K., Berkkanoglu, M., Bulut, H. et al. Agonist depot versus OCP programming of frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis of freeze-all cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 33, 207–214 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0639-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0639-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation