Freeze-all cycle in reproductive medicine: current perspectives.

The freeze-all strategy has emerged as an alternative to fresh embryo transfer (ET) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Although fresh ET is the norm during assisted reproductive therapies (ART), there are many concerns about the possible adverse effects of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) over the endometrium. The supra-physiologic hormonal levels that occur during a conventional COS are associated with modifications in the peri-implantation endometrium, which may be related to a decrease in pregnancy rates and poorer obstetric and perinatal outcomes when comparing fresh to frozen-thawed embryo transfers. The main objective of this study was to assess the available literature regarding the freeze-all strategy in IVF cycles, in regards to effectiveness and safety. Although there are many potential advantages in performing a freeze-all cycle over a fresh ET, it seems that the freeze-all strategy is not designed for all IVF patients. There is a need to develop a non-invasive clinical tool to evaluate the endometrial receptivity during a fresh cycle, which enables the selection of patients that would benefit from this strategy. Today, it is reasonable to perform elective cryopreservation of all oocytes/embryos in cases with a risk of OHSS development, and in patients with supra-physiologic hormonal levels during the follicular phase of COS. It is not clear if all normal responders and poor responders may benefit from this strategy.

Freeze-all cycle for all normal responders?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the freeze-all strategy in subgroups of normal responders, to assess whether this strategy is beneficial regardless of ovarian response, and to evaluate the possibility of implementing an individualized embryo transfer (iET) based on ovarian response. METHODS: This was an observational, cohort study performed in a private IVF center. A total of 938 IVF cycles were included in this study. The patients were submitted to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and a cleavage-stage day 3 embryo transfer. We performed a comparison of outcomes between the fresh embryo transfer (n = 523) and the freeze-all cycles (n = 415). The analysis was performed in two subgroups of patients based on the number of retrieved oocytes: Group 1 (4-9 oocytes) and Group 2 (10-15 oocytes). RESULT(S): In Group 1 (4-9 retrieved oocytes), the implantation rates (IR) were 17.9 and 20.5% (P = 0.259) in the fresh and freeze-all group, respectively; the ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) were 31 and 33% (P = 0.577) in the fresh and freeze-all group, respectively. In Group 2 (10-15 oocytes), the IR were 22.1 and 30.1% (P = 0.028) and the OPR were 34 and 47% (P = 0.021) in the fresh and freeze-all groups, respectively. CONCLUSION(S): Although the freeze-all policy may be related to better in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in normal responders, these potential advantages decrease with worsening ovarian response. Patients with poorer ovarian response do not benefit from the freeze-all strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Freeze-All Policy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of freeze-all cycles when compared to fresh embryo transfer. METHODS: This was an observational study with a cost-effectiveness analysis. The analysis consisted of 530 intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in a private center in Brazil between January 2012 and December 2013. A total of 530 intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles - 351 fresh embryo transfers and 179 freeze-all cycles - with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and day 3 embryo transfers. RESULTS: The pregnancy rate was 31.1% in the fresh group and 39.7% in the freeze-all group. We performed two scenario analyses for costs. In scenario 1, we included those costs associated with the ICSI cycle (monitoring during controlled ovarian stimulation [COS], oocyte retrieval, embryo transfer, IVF laboratory, and medical costs), embryo cryopreservation of supernumerary embryos, hormone measurements during COS and endometrial priming, medication use (during COS, endometrial priming, and luteal phase support), ultrasound scan for frozen- thawed embryo transfer (FET), obstetric ultrasounds, and miscarriage. The total cost (in USD) per pregnancy was statistically lower in the freeze-all cycles (19,156.73 ± 1,732.99) when compared to the fresh cycles (23,059.72 ± 2,347.02). Even in Scenario 2, when charging all of the patients in the freeze-all group for cryopreservation (regardless of supernumerary embryos) and for FET, the fresh cycles had a statistically significant increase in treatment costs per ongoing pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in this study suggest that the freeze-all policy is a cost-effective strategy when compared to fresh embryo transfer.