Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstract
Abstract Fertivision 2017
Case Report
Clinical Practice Guideline
Commentary
Current Issue
Editor's view point
Editorial
Editorial View Point
Fertivision 2015 - Abstracts
Guest Editorial
IFS pages
Letter to the Editor
Media & News
Original Article
Original Research
PCOS Guideline
Point of View
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstract
Abstract Fertivision 2017
Case Report
Clinical Practice Guideline
Commentary
Current Issue
Editor's view point
Editorial
Editorial View Point
Fertivision 2015 - Abstracts
Guest Editorial
IFS pages
Letter to the Editor
Media & News
Original Article
Original Research
PCOS Guideline
Point of View
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
5 (
1
); 2-3
doi:
10.4103/fsr.fsr_33_18

Freeze all for all − Proceed with caution

Aberdeen Fertility Centre, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen, UK

Address for correspondence: Dr. Abha Maheshwari, Aberdeen Fertility Centre, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen, UK. E-mail: abha.maheshwari@abdn.ac.uk

Licence

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Forty years ago, first in–vitro fertilisation (IVF) baby was born. Since then there have been several advances, including ability to freeze and use spare embryos. This has not only facilitated use of single-embryo transfer without compromising cumulative live birth rate but also have allowed ovarian hyperstimulation rates to plummet. First baby, using frozen embryos, was born in 1982. Since then use of frozen embryos have been on increase, with exponential increase in last few years and widespread use of vitrification. This is to the extent that we are talking about Freeze All for All and no fresh embryo transfer for anyone.

Current well-accepted list of indications for freezing all embryos in preference to fresh embryo transfer are risk of ovarian hyperstimulation, fertility preservation, thin endometrium and preimplantation genetic testing. Other indications that freezing of embryos is practiced are high progesterone (though there is uncertainty about cut-off level), batching of embryos (in poor responders), a tiny polyp or fluid in endometrium and recurrent implantation failure (which include even one unsuccessful embryo transfer). There are some clinics that are electively freezing all to improve the live birth rate.

The list of indications for freezing all embryos is growing constantly. Even for the definite indication such as risk of ovarian hyperstimulation, the threshold for freezing all embryos is constantly being lowered. Hence from poor to hyperresponders, there could be every indication for freeze all!

Is this the right thing to do? One could argue that in an era when there are claims that freezing thaw success rates are approaching 100%, what is the harm in freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer?

As the proportion of frozen embryo transfers are increasing, data on obstetric and perinatal outcomes are being revealed. Singleton pregnancies with frozen embryo transfers are associated with lesser risk of low birth weight, small for gestational age babies and preterm deliveries when compared to fresh embryo transfer. At the same time, pregnancies following frozen embryo transfer are associated with higher risk of large for gestational age babies. There are some reports suggesting there are higher risks of pre-eclampsia in pregnancies as a result of frozen embryo transfer.[2] Another emerging risk is increased risk of neonatal death.[1] Although the effect on birth weight and preterm delivery can be explained due to embryo implantation on hyperestrogenised endometrium, the explanation for pre-eclampsia is not clear. In addition, there are costs not only to clinics of extra storage, freezing and thawing but to patients of extra visits by freezing all embryos. Moreover, data so far do not suggest increased pregnancy rates in predicted normal responders by freezing all embryos.[3,4]

Hence, jury is still out whether we should freeze all embryos in all or continue to do what we do, that is fresh embryo transfer and freeze only the spare embryos. Therefore, we need more data.

With greater collaboration happening across the world, there is an opportunity to answer this question rather than doing what happens for most interventions in reproductive medicine − practice gets changed prematurely before evidence is available!

We should make every attempt to get the evidence right way before changing practice. Until then, we should do freeze all only when there are definite indications and with caution.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. , , , , , , . Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:523-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , . Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:35-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:126-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , . IVF transfer of fresh or frozen embryos in women without polycystic ovaries. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:137-47.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections