Comparaison des issues de transferts d’embryons congelés au stade blastocyste selon la technique de congélation et le type de préparation endométriale

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study intended to compare frozen embryo transfer (FET) outcomes at blastocyst stage according to freezing methods, slow freezing versus vitrification and according to the type of endometrial preparation. Patients and methodsA total of 172 FET at blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6) were included retrospectively from April, 2007 to December, 2012. The FET outcomes from slow freezing (group 1, n=86) were compared with those from vitrification (group 2, n=86). More particularly, the survival rate after thawing, as well as implantation and pregnancy rates (clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates) were compared respectively between these two groups, after matching on women's age at freezing day, embryo number and embryo development stage for transfer. Furthermore, for each freezing method, FET outcomes were compared according to the type of endometrial preparation, i.e. natural cycle (group N) versus stimulated cycle (group S). ResultsThe survival rate as well as implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were significantly higher for FET after vitrification compared to FET after slow freezing (97% vs 85%, P<0.0001; 32% vs 20%, P=0.02; 43% vs 28%, P=0.04, respectively). By taking into account the number of transferred embryos for each group, the multiple pregnancy rate was three-fold higher in the group of FET after vitrification compared to the group of FET after slow freezing but not significantly (27.3% vs 8.3%, NS). However, FET outcomes were not affected significantly by the type of endometrial preparation whatever freezing methods. Nevertheless, the early spontaneous abortion (ESA) rate was lower in the case of embryos that were frozen by vitrification and transferred in natural cycle (group N2 vs group S2: 20% vs 47%, NS). Discussion and conclusionOur study confirms that the survival rate after thawing at blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6) is significantly improved after freezing by vitrification compared to slow freezing method. Likewise, implantation and clinical pregnancy rates are significantly increased in the case of FET at blastocyst stage when these embryos were frozen by vitrification. The results obtained by vitrification are very satisfactory but are also associated with an increased multiple pregnancy rate. Moreover, FET associated with natural or stimulated cycle does not modify significantly the outcomes of attempts, whatever the freezing method. However, the risk of ESA is reduced in the case of FET with natural cycle and after embryo vitrification.