Publication:
A universal freeze all strategy: why it is not warranted

dc.contributor.coauthorSeli, Emre
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.kuauthorAta, Mustafa Barış
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSCHOOL OF MEDICINE
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:29:56Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractPurpose of review There's some preclinical evidence of an adverse effect of multifollicular growth on endometrial function in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Universal elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET) in an unstimulated cycle is being promoted as a panacea, regardless of patient, and cycle characteristics. We review the clinical evidence on the effectiveness and safety of eFETs. Recent findings Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fresh and eFET yield contradictory results in terms of live birth rates. RCTs mainly involve women with an excessive response to ovarian stimulation. Studies including women with a normal or low ovarian response are either patient/physician preference or retrospective studies, prone to bias. Yet, they yield contradictory results as well. Overall, eFET seems to have limited potential to improve effectiveness of assisted reproductive technology, which could be limited to hyper-responders. Other suggested advantages of eFET include better obstetric and perinatal outcome. However, recent studies show that frozen embryo transfers can be associated with serious complications including hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, placenta accreta, or increased perinatal mortality. Summary The evidence behind advantages of eFET is of low quality. As such, switching to a universal eFET strategy does not seem justified. New RCTs including women from different strata of ovarian response are needed.
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.issue3
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.volume29
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/GCO.0000000000000362
dc.identifier.eissn1473-656X
dc.identifier.issn1040-872X
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85015897764
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000362
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/12152
dc.identifier.wos401289000006
dc.keywordsAssisted reproductive technology
dc.keywordsCryopreservation
dc.keywordsElective
dc.keywordsEmbryo transfer in-vitro fertilization
dc.keywordsFrozen embryo-transfer
dc.keywordsAssisted reproductive technologies
dc.keywordsImpaired endometrial receptivity
dc.keywordsTrial comparing fresh
dc.keywordsEctopic pregnancy
dc.keywordsOvarian stimulation
dc.keywordsLive birth
dc.keywordsBlastocyst transfer
dc.keywordsIVF treatment
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology
dc.subjectObstetrics
dc.subjectGynecology
dc.titleA universal freeze all strategy: why it is not warranted
dc.typeReview
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.kuauthorAta, Mustafa Barış
local.publication.orgunit1SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
local.publication.orgunit2School of Medicine
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e

Files