Author (published) | Country | Design | Years | Method of cryopreservation | FET Preparation Groups | Maternal Significant Findings | Neonatal significant findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
von Versen-Höynck et al. (2019) [28] | United States of America | Prospective cohort study (single center) | 2011–2017 | Not listed | Modified natural cycle (n = 127) vs. programmed cycle (n = 94) | Programmed cycle vs. modified natural cycle: • ↑ Preeclampsia 12.8% vs. 3.9% (aOR 3.55; 95% CI 1.20–11.94) • ↑ Severe preeclampsia 9.6% vs. 0.8% (aOR 15.05; 95% CI 2.59–286.27). | Not studied |
Jing et al. (2019) [29] | China | Retrospective Cohort study (single center) | 2013–2016 | Vitrification | Programmed cycle (n = 2611) vs. natural cycle with luteal progesterone (n = 8, 425) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 7.2% vs. 4.2% (aOR 1.780; 95% CI 1.262–2.510) • ↑ Cesarean section 85.9% vs. 78.4% (aOR 1.507; 95% CI 1.195–1.900) | None |
Saito et al. (2019) [30] | Japan | Retrospective cohort study (multicenter) | 2014 | Not listed | Programmed cycle (n = 75,474) and natural cycle (n = 29,760) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Cesarean section 44.5% vs. 33.7% (aOR 1.69; 95% CI 1.55–1.84) • ↑ Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 4% vs. 3% (aOR 1.43; 95% CI 1.14–1.80) • ↑ Placenta accreta 0.9% vs. 0.1% (aOR 6.91; 95% CI 2.87–16.66) • ↓ Gestational diabetes mellitus 1.5% vs. 3.3% (aOR 0.52; 95% CI 0.40–0.68) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Postterm delivery 0.9% vs. 0.3% (aOR 3.28; 95% CI 1.73–6.19) • ↑ Preterm delivery 8.8% vs. 7.4% (aOR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05–1.40) |
Ginström Ernstad et al. (2019) [31] | Sweden | Retrospective cohort study (multicenter) | 2005–2015 | Vitrification and slow-freezing | Natural cycle (n = 6297) vs. stimulated cycle (n = 1983) vs. programmed cycle (n = 1446) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 10.5% vs. 6.1% (aOR 1.78; 95% CI 1.43–2.21) • ↑ Postpartum hemorrhage 19.4% vs. 7.9% (aOR 2.63; 95% CI 2.20–3.13 • ↑ Cesarean delivery 33.3% vs. 26.4% (aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.21–1.60) Programmed cycle vs. stimulated cycle: • ↑ Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 10.5% vs. 6.6% (aOR 1.61; 95% CI 1.22–2.10) • ↑ Postpartum hemorrhage 19.4% vs. 8.3% (aOR 2.87; 95% CI 2.29–3.60) • ↑ Cesarean delivery 33.3% vs. 28.9% (aOR 1.27; 95% CI 1.08–1.50) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle had increased risk of: • ↑ Post-term birth 8.9% vs. 5.8% (aOR 1.59; 95% CI 1.27–2.01) • ↑ Macrosomia 7.4% vs. 4.6% (aOR 1.62; 95% CI 1.26–2.09) Programmed cycle vs. stimulated cycle had increased risk of: • ↑ Post-term birth 8.9% vs. 4.7% (aOR 1.98; 95% CI 1.47–2.68) • ↑ Macrosomia 7.4% vs. 5.2% (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 1.03–1.90) |
Wang et al. (2020) [32] | China | Retrospective cohort study (single center) | 2014–2017 | Vitrification | Natural cycle (n = 1947) vs. stimulated cycle (n = 1682) vs. programmed cycle (2333) | Not studied | Stimulated cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↓ Macrosomia 5.1% vs. 6.8% (aOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57–0.97) Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Large for gestational age 19.9% vs. 16.9% (aOR 1.25; 95% CI 1.05–1.49) Programmed cycle vs. stimulated cycle: • ↑ Large for gestational age 19.3% vs. 16.1% (aOR 1.25; 95% CI 1.08–1.46) • ↑ Macrosomia 7.8% vs. 5.7% (aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.13–1.80) |
Zong et al. (2020) [33] | China | Retrospective cohort study (single center) | 2015–2018 | Vitrification | Natural cycle (n = 4727) vs programmed cycle (n = 1642) and natural cycle vs. stimulated cycle (n = 517) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 7.9% vs 3.5% (aOR 2.00; 95% CI 1.54–2.60) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Low birth weight 4.5% vs. 2.8% (aOR 1.49; 95%CI 1.09–2.06) • ↑ Preterm birth 7.9% vs. 4.6% (aOR 1.78; 95% CI 1.39–2.28) Stimulated cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Preterm birth 7.7% vs. 4.6% (aOR 1.51; 95% CI 1.02–2.23) |
Makhijani et al. (2020) [34] | United States of America | Retrospective cohort study (single center) | 2013–2018 | Vitrification | Natural cycle (n = 384) vs. programmed cycle (n = 391) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑overall maternal complications 32.2% vs. 18.8% (aOR 2.21; 95% CI 1.51–3.22) • ↑hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 15.3% vs. 6.3% (aOR 2.39; 95% CI 1.37–4.17) | None |
Zaat et al. (2021) [15] | Netherlands | Follow-up study to the ANTARCTICA randomized controlled trial (multicenter) | 2009–2014 | Vitrification and slow-freezing | Modified natural cycle (n = 45) and programmed cycle (n = 37) | Modified natural cycle vs. programmed cycle: • ↓ Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in 6.7% vs 24.3% (RR 0.2;, 95% CI 0.08–0.94) | None |
Hu et al. (2021) [35] | China | Retrospective cohort study (single center) | 2013–2019 | Vitrification | Natural cycle (n = 3790) vs. programmed cycle (n = 2561) and stimulated cycle (n = 670) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Cesarean delivery 73% vs. 64% (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.35–1.71) • ↑ Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 6% vs. 2% (aOR 2.84; 95% CI 2.11–3.83) | Programmed cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Preterm delivery 12% vs. 8% (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.25–1.78) • ↑ Very Preterm delivery 2% vs. 1% (aOR 2.59; 95% CI 1.56–4.29) • ↑ Low birthweight 5% vs. 3% (aOR 1.75; 95% CI 1.34–2.28) • ↑ Macrosomia 13% vs. 10% (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 1.01–1.41) • ↑ Premature rupture of membranes 2% vs. 1% (aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.12–2.49) Stimulated cycle vs. natural cycle: • ↑ Post-term delivery 0% vs. 0% (aOR 2.72; 95% CI 1.14–6.52) • ↑ Gestational diabetes mellitus 10% vs. 9% (aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.28–2.11) |