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

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Volumn 29, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1353-1356

  Ku, Pei Yun ^a   Lee, Robert Kuo Kuang ^a,b   Lin, Shyr Yeu ^a,d,e   Lin, Ming Huei ^a,c   Hwu, Yuh Ming ^a,c  

^a MACKAY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^b TAIPEI MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NURSING AND MANAGEMENT COLLEGE   (Taiwan)

^d CHUNG SHAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^e NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Blastocyst; Implantation; Pregnancy; Vitrification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLASTOCYST; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMBRYO TRANSFER; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; THAWING; TWIN PREGNANCY; VITRIFICATION;

ADULT; BLASTOCYST; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CRYOPRESERVATION; EMBRYO IMPLANTATION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SINGLE EMBRYO TRANSFER; SPERM INJECTIONS, INTRACYTOPLASMIC; VITRIFICATION;

EID: 84878367440     PISSN: 10580468     EISSN: 15737330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-012-9874-z     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Gardner DK, Balaban B. Choosing between day 3 and day 5 embryo transfers. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:85-92.
2. Kuleshova LL, Lopata A. Vitrification can be more favorable than slow cooling. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:449-54.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
10. Rall WF, Fahy GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at -196 C by vitrification. Nature. 1985;313:573-5.
11. Larman MG, Katz-Jaffe MG, et al. Analysis of global gene expression following mouse blastocyst cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2011;10:2672-80.
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.
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.
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.