The comparison of preparatory hormone therapy versus modified natural cycle for the transfer of embryos cryopreserved by different methods

Kravchuk Ia.N.

Kafedra reproduktivnogo zdorov'ia zhenshchin Severo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo universiteta im. I.I. Mechnikova

Kalugina A.S.

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Neonatology, Acad. I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg, Russia;
Ava-Peter Clinic, Saint Petersburg, Russia

The comparison of preparatory hormone therapy versus modified natural cycle for the transfer of embryos cryopreserved by different methods

Authors:

Kravchuk Ia.N., Kalugina A.S.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2013;(4): 61‑66

Downloaded: 22

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Kravchuk IaN, Kalugina AS. The comparison of preparatory hormone therapy versus modified natural cycle for the transfer of embryos cryopreserved by different methods. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2013;(4):61‑66. (In Russ.)

Close metadata

The efficiency of endometrial preparation for transfer of thawed embryos, cryopreserved by vitrification or low freezing method, with the help of HRT versus modified natural cycle is analyzed. It was established that vitrification method provides better embryo survival rate and results in a higher clinical pregnancy rate than slow freezing method. The impact of different endometrial preparation regimes on clinical pregnancy rate was not revealed.

Keywords:

vitrification

slow freezing

embryo transfer

natural cycl

Authors:

Kravchuk Ia.N.

Kafedra reproduktivnogo zdorov'ia zhenshchin Severo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo universiteta im. I.I. Mechnikova

Kalugina A.S.

List of references:

Lieberman J., Tucker M.J. Comparison of vitrification and conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 1: 20-26.
Kuwayama M., Vajta G., Ieda S. et al. Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11: 608-614.
Stehlik E.J., Stehlik K.P., Katayama M. et al. Vitrification demonstrates significant improvement versus slow freezing of human blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11: 53-57.
Huang C.C., Lee T.H., Chen S.U. et al. Successful pregnancy following blastocyst cryopreservation using super-cooling ultra-rapid vitrification. Human Reprod 2005; 20: 1: 122-128.
Mesut N., Ciray H.N., Mesut A. et al. Cryopreservation of blastocysts is the most feasible strategy in good responder patients. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 5: 1121-1125.
El-Toukhy T., Wharf E., Walavalkar R. Delayed blastocyst development does not influence the outcome of frozen-thawed transfer cycles. BJOG 2011; 118: 13: 1551-1556.
Glujovsky D., Pesce R., Fiszbajn G. et al. Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006359.
Konc J., Kanyo K., Varga E. et al. The effect of cycle regimen used for endometrium preparation on the outcome of day 3 frozen embryo transfer cycle. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2: 678-767.
Sathanandan M., Macnamee M.C., Rainsbury P. et al. Replacement of frozen-thawed embryos in artificial and natural cycles: a prospective semi-randomized study. Human Reprod 1991; 6: 5: 685-687.
Morozov V., Ruman J., Kenigsberg D. et al. Natural cycle cryo-thaw transfer may improve pregnancy outcome. J Ass Reprod Genet 2007; 24: 4: 119-123.
Kassab A., Sabatini L., Tozer A. et al. The correlation between basal serum follicle-stimulating hormone levels before embryo cryopreservation and the clinical outcome of frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 4: 1269-1275.
Chang E.M., Han J.E, Kim Y.S. et al. Use of the natural cycle and vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer results in better in-vitro fertilization outcomes. J Ass Reprod Genet 2011; 28: 4: 369-374.
Fatemi H.M., Kyrou D., Bourgain C. et al. Cryopreserved-thawed human embryo transfer: spontaneous natural cycle is superior to human chorionic gonadotropin-induced natural cycle. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 6: 2054-2058.
Weissman A., Levin D., Ravhon A. et al. What is the preferred method for timing natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer? Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19: 1: 66-71.
Ma W., Song H., Sanjoy K., Das S.K. et al. Estrogen is a critical determinant that specifies the duration of the window of uterine receptivity for implantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 5: 2963-2968.
Zhu D., Zhang J., Cao S. et al. Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles-time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 5: 1691-1695.
Chen Q.J., Sun X.X., Li L. et al. Effects of ovarian stimulation on endometrial integrin beta3 and leukemia inhibitory factor expression in the peri-implantation phase. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: Suppl: 5: 1357-1363.
Liu Y., Lee K.F., Ng E.H. et al. Gene expression profiling of human peri-implantation endometria between natural and stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 6: 2152-2164.
Sterzik K., Grab D., Schneider V. et al. Lack of correlation between ultrasonography and histologic staging of the endometrium in in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23: 2: 165-170.
Friedler S., Schenker J.G., Herman A. et al. The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments: a critical review. Human Reprod Update 1996; 2: 4: 323-335.

Close metadata