Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMatorras Weinig, José Roberto
dc.contributor.authorPijoán, José Ignacio
dc.contributor.authorPérez Ruiz, Irantzu
dc.contributor.authorLaínz, Lucía
dc.contributor.authorMalaina Celada, Iker ORCID
dc.contributor.authorBorjaba Asensio, Sonia
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-25T10:55:11Z
dc.date.available2021-05-25T10:55:11Z
dc.date.issued2021-04
dc.identifier.citationReproductive Medicine And Biology 20(2) : 144-158 (2021)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1445-5781
dc.identifier.issn1447-0578
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/51626
dc.description.abstractBackground The decision of whether frozen embryo transfer (FET) should be performed in the cycle immediately after OPU or at least one cycle later is controversial. FET could improve pregnancy rates in IVF; however, how much time is needed for the endometrium to return to optimal receptivity after ovarian stimulation is not known. Methods Electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies providing data on the influence of the interval between embryo freezing (or OPU) and FET in FET cycles published between January 1, 2007, and February 1, 2020. Main findings Data analyzed indicated that in the immediate FET cycles, there was a trend to an increased biochemical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.08; CI = 1.00-1.18), whereas the clinical pregnancy rate was somewhat higher, but without reaching statistical significance (RR = 1.07; CI = 0.99-1.15). The live birth rate was similar in the two groups (RR = 1.05; CI = 0.95-1.15), as was the implantation rate (RR = 0.98; CI = 0.83-1.16). Stratifying by embryo stage or FET type (freeze-all or FET after failed fresh transfer) showed no differences. Conclusion Systematically delaying FET does not offer benefits to IVF outcomes. In addition, immediate transfer is associated with a nonsignificant trend to better clinical pregnancy rate and it also avoids the psychological effects of prolonging the stress on prospective parents.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherWileyes_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectdelayed transferes_ES
dc.subjectfrozen embryo transferes_ES
dc.subjectimmediate transferes_ES
dc.subjectIVFes_ES
dc.subjectpregnancy rateses_ES
dc.subjectin-vitro fertilizationes_ES
dc.subjectendometrial receptivityes_ES
dc.subjecttime-intervales_ES
dc.subjectovarian stimulationes_ES
dc.subjectuterine receptivityes_ES
dc.subjectGnRH agonistes_ES
dc.subjectfrozenes_ES
dc.subjectfreshes_ES
dc.subjectprotocoles_ES
dc.subjectsuccesses_ES
dc.titleMeta-Analysis of the Embryo Freezing Transfer Intervales_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holderThis is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License (CC BY-NC 4.0)es_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución-NoComercial 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33850447/es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/rmb2.12363
dc.departamentoesEspecialidades médico-quirúrgicases_ES
dc.departamentoesMatemáticases_ES
dc.departamentoeuMatematikaes_ES
dc.departamentoeuMedikuntza eta kirurgia espezialitateakes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License  (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License (CC BY-NC 4.0)