The interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer does not affect the live birth rate and obstetrical outcomes
The 'Freeze all' strategy, which consists of cryopreservation of all embryos after the ovarian stimulation has undergone extensive development in the past decade. The time required for the endometrium to revert to a prestimulation state after ovarian stimulation and thus the optimal time t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0206067-e0206067 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0206067 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0206067 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Bourdon, Mathilde Santulli, Pietro Maignien, Chloé Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled Alwohaibi, Asim Marcellin, Louis Blais, Sarah Chapron, Charles |
| description | The 'Freeze all' strategy, which consists of cryopreservation of all embryos after the ovarian stimulation has undergone extensive development in the past decade. The time required for the endometrium to revert to a prestimulation state after ovarian stimulation and thus the optimal time to perform a deferred embryo transfer after the stimulation has not been determined yet.
To investigate the impact of the time from oocyte retrieval to frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (FBT) on live birth rate (LBR), obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, in 'Freeze-all' cycle.
We conducted a large observational cohort study in a tertiary care university hospital including four hundred and seventy-four first autologous FBT performed after ovarian stimulation in 'freeze all' cycles. Reproductive outcomes were compared between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after the oocyte retrieval ('cycle 1' group) or delayed FBT ('cycle ≥ 2' group). The main Outcome Measure was the Live birth rate.
A total of 188 FBT were included in the analysis in the 'cycle 1' group and 286 in the 'cycle ≥ 2' group. No significant differences were found between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval (the 'cycle 1' group) and delayed FBT (the 'cycle ≥ 2' group) in terms of the live birth rate [59/188 (31.38%) vs. 85/286 (29.72%); p = 0.696] and the miscarriage rate [20/82 (24.39%) vs. 37/125 (29.60%), respectively; p = 0.413]. The obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were also not significantly different between the two groups.
Our study did not detect statistically significant differences in the LBR for FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval versus FBT following subsequent cycles. Embryo-endometrium interaction after a FBT does not appear to be impaired by potential adverse effects of COS whatever the number of cycle between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0206067 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2123042938</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A559617448</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_52e6ffcfa6954e7fb89dfed9621ee563</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A559617448</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3235a4e4f6f45a55dd2875f5e47ca6cef95b90f546c4f52d713739e242df7a713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk81u1DAQgCMEoqXwBggiISE47OL4L5sLUlXxs1KlSlC4Wo493vUqaxfb2VKegMfGYdNqg3pAOST2fPM5M8kUxfMKzStSV-82vg9OdvMr72COMOKI1w-K46oheMYxIg8Pno-KJzFuEGJkwfnj4oggQpoaoePi9-UaSusShJ3syhbSNYArvVc3CcoAKVgYAtLp0gT_C9wsreU16LLtZEwZi6lMQbpoIJTaQyydT6U0BlQOZHdnd1C2NqR1GWR2DibfxjSoVTb7Pim_hfi0eGRkF-HZeD8pvn38cHn2eXZ-8Wl5dno-U7zBaUYwYZICNdxQJhnTGi9qZhjQWkmuwDSsbZBhlCtqGNZ17hVpAFOsTS3z6qR4ufdedT6KsYlR4AoTRHFDFplY7gnt5UZcBbuV4UZ4acXfDR9WQoZkVQeCYeDGKCN5wyjUpl002oBuOK4AGCfZ9X48rW-3oBW43KxuIp1GnF2Lld8JXjWMIJQFb0ZB8D96iElsbVTQddKB7_fvXeOhyIy--ge9v7qRWslcgHXG53PVIBWnjDW8qikdqPk9VL40bK3Kf5yxeX-S8HaSkJkEP9NK9jGK5dcv_89efJ-yrw_YNcguraPv-mS9i1OQ7kEVfIwBzF2TKySGgbnthhgGRowDk9NeHH6gu6TbCSF_AHryE04</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2123042938</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer does not affect the live birth rate and obstetrical outcomes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Bourdon, Mathilde ; Santulli, Pietro ; Maignien, Chloé ; Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled ; Alwohaibi, Asim ; Marcellin, Louis ; Blais, Sarah ; Chapron, Charles</creator><contributor>Schlatt, Stefan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bourdon, Mathilde ; Santulli, Pietro ; Maignien, Chloé ; Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled ; Alwohaibi, Asim ; Marcellin, Louis ; Blais, Sarah ; Chapron, Charles ; Schlatt, Stefan</creatorcontrib><description>The 'Freeze all' strategy, which consists of cryopreservation of all embryos after the ovarian stimulation has undergone extensive development in the past decade. The time required for the endometrium to revert to a prestimulation state after ovarian stimulation and thus the optimal time to perform a deferred embryo transfer after the stimulation has not been determined yet.
To investigate the impact of the time from oocyte retrieval to frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (FBT) on live birth rate (LBR), obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, in 'Freeze-all' cycle.
We conducted a large observational cohort study in a tertiary care university hospital including four hundred and seventy-four first autologous FBT performed after ovarian stimulation in 'freeze all' cycles. Reproductive outcomes were compared between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after the oocyte retrieval ('cycle 1' group) or delayed FBT ('cycle ≥ 2' group). The main Outcome Measure was the Live birth rate.
A total of 188 FBT were included in the analysis in the 'cycle 1' group and 286 in the 'cycle ≥ 2' group. No significant differences were found between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval (the 'cycle 1' group) and delayed FBT (the 'cycle ≥ 2' group) in terms of the live birth rate [59/188 (31.38%) vs. 85/286 (29.72%); p = 0.696] and the miscarriage rate [20/82 (24.39%) vs. 37/125 (29.60%), respectively; p = 0.413]. The obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were also not significantly different between the two groups.
Our study did not detect statistically significant differences in the LBR for FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval versus FBT following subsequent cycles. Embryo-endometrium interaction after a FBT does not appear to be impaired by potential adverse effects of COS whatever the number of cycle between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206067</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30339700</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Analysis ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Birth Rate ; Birth rates ; Births ; Childbirth & labor ; Cryopreservation ; Delivery, Obstetric ; Embryo Transfer ; Embryos ; Endometrium ; Female ; Freezing ; Gynecology ; Health aspects ; Humans ; In vitro fertilization ; Infant, Newborn ; Jargon ; Live Birth - epidemiology ; Logistic Models ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Menstrual cycle ; Miscarriage ; Neonates ; Newborn infants ; Observational studies ; Obstetrics ; Oocyte Retrieval ; Outcome and process assessment (Medical care) ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome - epidemiology ; Reproductive health ; Reproductive technologies ; Reproductive technology ; Retrieval ; Risk Factors ; Statistical analysis ; Stimulation ; SWOT analysis ; Terminology ; Time Factors ; Ultrasonic imaging</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0206067-e0206067</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Bourdon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Bourdon et al 2018 Bourdon et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3235a4e4f6f45a55dd2875f5e47ca6cef95b90f546c4f52d713739e242df7a713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3235a4e4f6f45a55dd2875f5e47ca6cef95b90f546c4f52d713739e242df7a713</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4985-7326</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195300/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195300/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2097,2916,23848,27906,27907,53773,53775,79350,79351</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30339700$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Schlatt, Stefan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bourdon, Mathilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santulli, Pietro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maignien, Chloé</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alwohaibi, Asim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcellin, Louis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blais, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapron, Charles</creatorcontrib><title>The interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer does not affect the live birth rate and obstetrical outcomes</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The 'Freeze all' strategy, which consists of cryopreservation of all embryos after the ovarian stimulation has undergone extensive development in the past decade. The time required for the endometrium to revert to a prestimulation state after ovarian stimulation and thus the optimal time to perform a deferred embryo transfer after the stimulation has not been determined yet.
To investigate the impact of the time from oocyte retrieval to frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (FBT) on live birth rate (LBR), obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, in 'Freeze-all' cycle.
We conducted a large observational cohort study in a tertiary care university hospital including four hundred and seventy-four first autologous FBT performed after ovarian stimulation in 'freeze all' cycles. Reproductive outcomes were compared between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after the oocyte retrieval ('cycle 1' group) or delayed FBT ('cycle ≥ 2' group). The main Outcome Measure was the Live birth rate.
A total of 188 FBT were included in the analysis in the 'cycle 1' group and 286 in the 'cycle ≥ 2' group. No significant differences were found between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval (the 'cycle 1' group) and delayed FBT (the 'cycle ≥ 2' group) in terms of the live birth rate [59/188 (31.38%) vs. 85/286 (29.72%); p = 0.696] and the miscarriage rate [20/82 (24.39%) vs. 37/125 (29.60%), respectively; p = 0.413]. The obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were also not significantly different between the two groups.
Our study did not detect statistically significant differences in the LBR for FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval versus FBT following subsequent cycles. Embryo-endometrium interaction after a FBT does not appear to be impaired by potential adverse effects of COS whatever the number of cycle between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Birth Rate</subject><subject>Birth rates</subject><subject>Births</subject><subject>Childbirth & labor</subject><subject>Cryopreservation</subject><subject>Delivery, Obstetric</subject><subject>Embryo Transfer</subject><subject>Embryos</subject><subject>Endometrium</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Freezing</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>In vitro fertilization</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Jargon</subject><subject>Live Birth - epidemiology</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Menstrual cycle</subject><subject>Miscarriage</subject><subject>Neonates</subject><subject>Newborn infants</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Oocyte Retrieval</subject><subject>Outcome and process assessment (Medical care)</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Outcome - epidemiology</subject><subject>Reproductive health</subject><subject>Reproductive technologies</subject><subject>Reproductive technology</subject><subject>Retrieval</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Stimulation</subject><subject>SWOT analysis</subject><subject>Terminology</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk81u1DAQgCMEoqXwBggiISE47OL4L5sLUlXxs1KlSlC4Wo493vUqaxfb2VKegMfGYdNqg3pAOST2fPM5M8kUxfMKzStSV-82vg9OdvMr72COMOKI1w-K46oheMYxIg8Pno-KJzFuEGJkwfnj4oggQpoaoePi9-UaSusShJ3syhbSNYArvVc3CcoAKVgYAtLp0gT_C9wsreU16LLtZEwZi6lMQbpoIJTaQyydT6U0BlQOZHdnd1C2NqR1GWR2DibfxjSoVTb7Pim_hfi0eGRkF-HZeD8pvn38cHn2eXZ-8Wl5dno-U7zBaUYwYZICNdxQJhnTGi9qZhjQWkmuwDSsbZBhlCtqGNZ17hVpAFOsTS3z6qR4ufdedT6KsYlR4AoTRHFDFplY7gnt5UZcBbuV4UZ4acXfDR9WQoZkVQeCYeDGKCN5wyjUpl002oBuOK4AGCfZ9X48rW-3oBW43KxuIp1GnF2Lld8JXjWMIJQFb0ZB8D96iElsbVTQddKB7_fvXeOhyIy--ge9v7qRWslcgHXG53PVIBWnjDW8qikdqPk9VL40bK3Kf5yxeX-S8HaSkJkEP9NK9jGK5dcv_89efJ-yrw_YNcguraPv-mS9i1OQ7kEVfIwBzF2TKySGgbnthhgGRowDk9NeHH6gu6TbCSF_AHryE04</recordid><startdate>20181019</startdate><enddate>20181019</enddate><creator>Bourdon, Mathilde</creator><creator>Santulli, Pietro</creator><creator>Maignien, Chloé</creator><creator>Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled</creator><creator>Alwohaibi, Asim</creator><creator>Marcellin, Louis</creator><creator>Blais, Sarah</creator><creator>Chapron, Charles</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4985-7326</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181019</creationdate><title>The interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer does not affect the live birth rate and obstetrical outcomes</title><author>Bourdon, Mathilde ; Santulli, Pietro ; Maignien, Chloé ; Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled ; Alwohaibi, Asim ; Marcellin, Louis ; Blais, Sarah ; Chapron, Charles</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3235a4e4f6f45a55dd2875f5e47ca6cef95b90f546c4f52d713739e242df7a713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Birth Rate</topic><topic>Birth rates</topic><topic>Births</topic><topic>Childbirth & labor</topic><topic>Cryopreservation</topic><topic>Delivery, Obstetric</topic><topic>Embryo Transfer</topic><topic>Embryos</topic><topic>Endometrium</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Freezing</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>In vitro fertilization</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Jargon</topic><topic>Live Birth - epidemiology</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Menstrual cycle</topic><topic>Miscarriage</topic><topic>Neonates</topic><topic>Newborn infants</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Oocyte Retrieval</topic><topic>Outcome and process assessment (Medical care)</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Outcome - epidemiology</topic><topic>Reproductive health</topic><topic>Reproductive technologies</topic><topic>Reproductive technology</topic><topic>Retrieval</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Stimulation</topic><topic>SWOT analysis</topic><topic>Terminology</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bourdon, Mathilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santulli, Pietro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maignien, Chloé</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alwohaibi, Asim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcellin, Louis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blais, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapron, Charles</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bourdon, Mathilde</au><au>Santulli, Pietro</au><au>Maignien, Chloé</au><au>Pocate-Cheriet, Khaled</au><au>Alwohaibi, Asim</au><au>Marcellin, Louis</au><au>Blais, Sarah</au><au>Chapron, Charles</au><au>Schlatt, Stefan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer does not affect the live birth rate and obstetrical outcomes</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-10-19</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0206067</spage><epage>e0206067</epage><pages>e0206067-e0206067</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The 'Freeze all' strategy, which consists of cryopreservation of all embryos after the ovarian stimulation has undergone extensive development in the past decade. The time required for the endometrium to revert to a prestimulation state after ovarian stimulation and thus the optimal time to perform a deferred embryo transfer after the stimulation has not been determined yet.
To investigate the impact of the time from oocyte retrieval to frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (FBT) on live birth rate (LBR), obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, in 'Freeze-all' cycle.
We conducted a large observational cohort study in a tertiary care university hospital including four hundred and seventy-four first autologous FBT performed after ovarian stimulation in 'freeze all' cycles. Reproductive outcomes were compared between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after the oocyte retrieval ('cycle 1' group) or delayed FBT ('cycle ≥ 2' group). The main Outcome Measure was the Live birth rate.
A total of 188 FBT were included in the analysis in the 'cycle 1' group and 286 in the 'cycle ≥ 2' group. No significant differences were found between FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval (the 'cycle 1' group) and delayed FBT (the 'cycle ≥ 2' group) in terms of the live birth rate [59/188 (31.38%) vs. 85/286 (29.72%); p = 0.696] and the miscarriage rate [20/82 (24.39%) vs. 37/125 (29.60%), respectively; p = 0.413]. The obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were also not significantly different between the two groups.
Our study did not detect statistically significant differences in the LBR for FBT performed within the first menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval versus FBT following subsequent cycles. Embryo-endometrium interaction after a FBT does not appear to be impaired by potential adverse effects of COS whatever the number of cycle between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30339700</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0206067</doi><tpages>e0206067</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4985-7326</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0206067-e0206067 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2123042938 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adult Analysis Biology and Life Sciences Birth Rate Birth rates Births Childbirth & labor Cryopreservation Delivery, Obstetric Embryo Transfer Embryos Endometrium Female Freezing Gynecology Health aspects Humans In vitro fertilization Infant, Newborn Jargon Live Birth - epidemiology Logistic Models Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Menstrual cycle Miscarriage Neonates Newborn infants Observational studies Obstetrics Oocyte Retrieval Outcome and process assessment (Medical care) Pregnancy Pregnancy Outcome - epidemiology Reproductive health Reproductive technologies Reproductive technology Retrieval Risk Factors Statistical analysis Stimulation SWOT analysis Terminology Time Factors Ultrasonic imaging |
| title | The interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer does not affect the live birth rate and obstetrical outcomes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T08%3A55%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20interval%20between%20oocyte%20retrieval%20and%20frozen-thawed%20blastocyst%20transfer%20does%20not%20affect%20the%20live%20birth%20rate%20and%20obstetrical%20outcomes&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Bourdon,%20Mathilde&rft.date=2018-10-19&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0206067&rft.epage=e0206067&rft.pages=e0206067-e0206067&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0206067&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA559617448%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2123042938&rft_id=info:pmid/30339700&rft_galeid=A559617448&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_52e6ffcfa6954e7fb89dfed9621ee563&rfr_iscdi=true |