P–751 Immediate versus postponed frozen-thawed embryo transfer after IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Bergenheim S , Saupstad M , Pistoljevic N , Nybo. Andersen A , Lyn. Forman J , Løssl K , Pinborg A 
Published: August 2021

Abstract

Study question
Can frozen embryo transfer (FET) be offered immediately after a stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle without compromising live birth rate (LBR)?

Summary answer
FET in the menstrual cycle immediately following the stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle was associated with a slightly higher LBR compared to standard postponed FET.

What is known already
It is standard clinical practice to postpone FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle. This practice is thought to minimize any possible residual negative effect of ovarian stimulation, with excessive steroid levels and multiple corpora lutea, on the resumption of a normal ovulatory cycle and receptivity of the endometrium. Even so, elective deferral of FET is an empirical strategy based on suggestions rather than solid scientific evidence and may unnecessarily delay time to pregnancy, causing frustration and decreased quality of life to couples.

Study design, size, duration
Systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. Original studies on subfertile women aged 18–46 with any indication for treatment with IVF/ICSI investigating the timing of FET after IVF/ICSI were included. Intervention was defined as FET in the menstrual cycle immediately following the stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle. Comparator was defined as FET in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle following IVF/ICSI. Risk of bias was assessed using Robins-I and quality of evidence using GRADE.

Participants/materials, setting, methods
PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases were searched for MeSH and Emtree terms, as well as text words related to timing of FET, up to March 2020. There were no limitations regarding year of publication or duration of follow-up but to English language. The primary outcome was LBR. Secondary outcomes were implantation rate, pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), time-to-pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), cycle cancellation rate and patient wellbeing.

Main results and the role of chance
Out of 4124 search results, 15 studies were included in the review. Studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for LBR, CPR and MR were included in meta-analyses. All studies (n = 15) were retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 6,304 immediate FET cycles and 13,851 postponed FET cycles including 8,019 matched controls. Twelve studies of very low to moderate quality reported no difference in LBR with immediate versus postponed FET. Two studies of moderate quality reported a statistically significant increase in LBR with immediate FET and one small study of very low quality reported better LBR with postponed FET. Trends in rates of secondary outcomes followed trends in LBR regarding timing of FET. The meta-analyses showed a significant advantage of immediate FET (n = 2,076) compared to postponed FET (n = 3,833), with a pooled aOR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.01–1.44) for LBR and a pooled aOR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.07–1.39) for CPR. Limitations, reasons for caution: Limitations include the retrospective design and heterogeneity of studies included, limiting comparison and pooling of data. With little transparency regarding cancellation rates, the risk of selection bias is apparent. Further, confounding by embryo quality is a limitation. Small sample sizes are a limitation to subgroup meta-analyses.
Wider implications of the findings: The standard clinical practice of postponing FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle may not be best clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials including data on cancellation rates are highly needed to provide high grade evidence regarding clinical practice and patient counseling.

Trial registration number
Not applicable