Department of Reproductive Medicine, ORIGEN-Center for Reproductive Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Jan 1;25(1):2-14. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmy033.
Elective freezing of all good quality embryos and transfer in subsequent cycles, i.e. elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET), has recently increased significantly with the introduction of the GnRH agonist trigger protocol and improvements in cryo-techniques. The ongoing discussion focuses on whether eFET should be offered to the overall IVF population or only to specific subsets of patients. Until recently, the clinical usage of eFET was supported by only a few randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses, suggesting that the eFET not only reduced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), but also improved reproductive outcomes. However, the evidence is not unequivocal, and recent RCTs challenge the use of eFET for the general IVF population.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating whether eFET is advantageous for reproductive, obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared with fresh embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles. Additionally, we evaluated the effectiveness of eFET in comparison to fresh embryo transfer in different subgroups of patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles.
We conducted a systematic review, using PubMed/Medline and EMBASE to identify all relevant RCTs published until March 2018. The participants included infertile couples undergoing IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR), whereas secondary outcomes were cumulative LBR, implantation rate, miscarriage, OHSS, ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth, pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, mean birthweight and congenital anomalies. Subgroup analyses included normal and hyper-responder patients, embryo developmental stage on the day of embryo transfer, freezing method and the route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in eFET cycles.
Eleven studies, including 5379 patients, fulfilling the inclusion criteria were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analysis. A significant increase in LBR was noted with eFET compared with fresh embryo transfer in the overall IVF/ICSI population [risk ratio (RR) = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01-1.24]. Subgroup analyses indicated higher LBRs by eFET than by fresh embryo transfer in hyper-responders (RR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05-1.28) and in PGT-A cycles (RR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.14-2.10). However, no differences were observed for LBR in normo-responders (RR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.91-1.17); moreover, the cumulative LBR was not significantly different in the overall population (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.97-1.11). Regarding safety, the risk of moderate/severe OHSS was significantly lower with eFET than with fresh embryo transfer (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19-0.96). In contrast, the risk of pre-eclampsia increased with eFET (RR = 1.79; 95% CI: 1.03-3.09). No statistical differences were noted in the remaining secondary outcomes.
Although the use of eFET has steadily increased in recent years, a significant increase in LBR with eFET was solely noted in hyper-responders and in patients undergoing PGT-A. Concerning safety, eFET significantly decreases the risk of moderate and severe OHSS, albeit at the expense of an increased risk of pre-eclampsia.
随着 GnRH 激动剂触发方案的引入和冷冻技术的改进,选择将所有优质胚胎冷冻并在随后的周期中进行移植,即选择性冻融胚胎移植(eFET),最近显著增加。目前的讨论集中在是否应该将 eFET 提供给所有 IVF 人群,还是仅提供给特定的患者亚组。直到最近,只有少数随机对照试验(RCT)和荟萃分析支持 eFET 的临床应用,这些研究表明 eFET 不仅可以降低卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)的风险,还可以改善生殖结局。然而,证据并不明确,最近的 RCT 对 eFET 在一般 IVF 人群中的应用提出了质疑。
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估与新鲜胚胎移植相比,eFET 是否在 IVF/ICSI 周期中的生殖、产科和围产期结局方面具有优势。此外,我们还评估了 eFET 在不同 IVF/ICSI 周期患者亚组中与新鲜胚胎移植相比的有效性。
我们使用 PubMed/Medline 和 EMBASE 进行了系统评价,以确定截至 2018 年 3 月发表的所有相关 RCT。参与者包括接受 IVF/ICSI 治疗的不孕夫妇,无论是否进行胚胎植入前染色体非整倍体筛查(PGT-A)。主要结局是活产率(LBR),次要结局包括累积活产率、着床率、流产率、OHSS、异位妊娠、早产、妊娠高血压、子痫前期、平均出生体重和先天性异常。亚组分析包括正常和高反应者、胚胎移植日胚胎发育阶段、冷冻方法和黄体期支持中孕激素给药途径。
11 项研究,包括 5379 名符合纳入标准的患者,进行了定性和定量分析。与新鲜胚胎移植相比,eFET 显著增加了整体 IVF/ICSI 人群的活产率[风险比(RR)=1.12;95%置信区间:1.01-1.24]。亚组分析表明,在高反应者(RR=1.16;95%置信区间:1.05-1.28)和 PGT-A 周期(RR=1.55;95%置信区间:1.14-2.10)中,eFET 的活产率高于新鲜胚胎移植。然而,在正常反应者中,LBR 没有差异(RR=1.03;95%置信区间:0.91-1.17);此外,总体人群的累积活产率没有显著差异(RR=1.04;95%置信区间:0.97-1.11)。关于安全性,eFET 显著降低了中度/重度 OHSS 的风险(RR=0.42;95%置信区间:0.19-0.96)。相比之下,eFET 增加了子痫前期的风险(RR=1.79;95%置信区间:1.03-3.09)。其他次要结局没有统计学差异。
尽管近年来 eFET 的使用稳步增加,但仅在高反应者和进行 PGT-A 的患者中观察到 eFET 与活产率的显著增加。关于安全性,eFET 显著降低了中度和重度 OHSS 的风险,但以子痫前期风险增加为代价。