Skip to main content

The utility of all-freeze IVF cycles depends on the composition of study populations



Because often introduced without proper validation studies, so-called “add-ons” to IVF have adversely affected in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes worldwide. All-freeze cycles (embryo banking, EB) with subsequently deferred thaw cycles are such an “add-on” and, because of greatly diverging reported outcomes, have become increasingly controversial. Based on “modeling” with selected patient populations, we in this study investigated whether reported outcome discrepancies may be the consequence of biased patient selection.


In four distinct retrospective case control studies, we modeled in four cohort pairings how cryopreservation with subsequent thaw cycles affects outcomes differently in good-, average- and poor-prognosis patients: (i) 127 fresh vs. 193 frozen donor-recipient cycles to model best-prognosis patients; (ii) 741 autologous fresh non-donor IVF cycles vs. 217 autologous frozen non-donor IVF cycles to model average prognosis patients; (iii) 143 favorably selected autologous non-donor IVF cycles vs. the same 217 frozen autologous cycles non-donor to monitor good- vs. average-prognosis patients; and (iv) 598 average and poor-prognosis autologous non-donor cycles vs. the same 217 frozen autologous non-donor cycles to model poor vs. average prognosis patients. In best-prognosis patients, EB marginally improved IVF outcomes. In unselected patients, EB had no effects. In poor-prognosis patients, EB adversely affected IVF outcomes. Unexpectedly, the study also discovered independent-of-age-associated chromosomal abnormalities, a previously unreported effect of recipient age on miscarriage risk in donor-egg recipients.


In poor-prognosis patients, EB cycles should be considered contraindicated. In intermediate-prognosis patients EB does not appear to change outcomes, not warranting additional cost and time delays. Therefore, only good-prognosis patients are candidates for EB, though they will experience only marginal benefits that may not be cost-effective.


Traditionally, embryo cryopreservation during in vitro fertilization (IVF) has mostly been a last resort option when fresh embryo transfers were either contraindicated and/or more embryos were produced than could be transferred. Some colleagues recently, however, advanced a concept of all-freeze IVF cycles with routine embryo banking (EB), claiming improved pregnancy and live birth chances [1,2,3].

Like other “add-ons” to IVF, EB has therefore remained a controversial hypothesis [4,5,6], as “add-ons” without proper prior validations since 2010 have become more common [7] and declining live birth rates in fresh non-donor IVF cycles have been attributed to their increasing utilization [8]. A recent review summarized why the EB hypothesis may be incorrect [9]. In many “add-ons,” biased patient selections were identified as a major reason. Regarding EB, this can be extrapolated from two large, almost identical, Chinese multi-center studies, executed by the same group of investigators with, nevertheless, opposing outcomes: Comparing fresh transfers to transfers after EB, one study demonstrated mild outcome benefits from EB [10], while the other did not [11]. Both studies were performed on women with identical genetic background (Han Chinese); their only difference was that the former study transferred embryos at blastocyst stage and the latter at cleavage stage.

Blastocyst stage transfers, however, favor the selection of better-prognosis patients since study inclusion mandated at least one blastocyst-stage embryo, a qualification in poorer-prognosis patients often not achieved. Yet, many studies then generalize conclusions in such favorable-prognosis patients to all IVF patients. The second Chinese study, which transferred embryos already at cleavage stage, did not bias patient selection in the same way, therefore utilizing a much better representation of a general patient population of infertile women and found no outcome advantage from EB. Unsurprisingly, the marginal outcome advantages seen for EB in the first Chinese study of better-prognosis patients [10], thus, promptly evaporated in the second study that transferred at cleavage-stage [11], perfectly demonstrating the often-overlooked effects of inappropriate patient selection. Appropriately adjusted studies have confirmed this [1, 3, 10,11,12] utilizing genetically, distinctively different patient populations from Han Chinese, including a recent European multicenter study also performed in favorably selected patients receiving single blastocyst-stage embryo transfers [12].

General infertile patient populations always contain a mix of good-, average-, and poor-prognosis individuals [13]. Correct considerations of study populations are therefore essential for the correct interpretation of study results. To confirm that contradictory outcome data following EB may be the consequence of biased patient selections, here presented study was conceived, using on purpose highly selected patient populations in a retrospective analysis of a large data set of IVF cycles to model outcome comparisons for IVF with and without the two quintessential components of EB,—cryopreservation and thaw-cycles. As our data will demonstrate, our models produced basically identical results to recently reported studies that demonstrated no significant outcome benefits for EB [12].


Third-party egg donation cycles: fresh vs. frozen

In this first part of the study, we compared IVF cycle outcomes in 127 fresh donor egg recipient cycles to 193 frozen-thawed cycles in which embryos had been produced with fresh donor eggs (Table 1).

Table 1 Comparison of fresh and frozen donor egg recipient cycles

Patient characteristics

As the table demonstrates, the ages of recipient patients were very advanced and similar (45.6 ± 5.1 and 45.7 ± 5.9 years; P = 0.9330), as were lowest Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) (0.4 ± 0.5 vs. 0.6 ± 0.8 ng/mL; P = 0.0775) and highest Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels (27.5 ± 31.0 vs. 24.5 ± 26.9; P = 0.4213) as well as numbers of transferred embryos (1.6 ± 0.6 vs. 1.7 ± 0.6; P = 0.2208).

IVF outcomes

In fresh donor-recipient cycles, 46/127 (36.2%) conceived and 34/46 (73.9%) delivered, while 12/46 (26.1%) miscarried. In contrast, 56/193 (29.0%) frozen cycles led to clinical pregnancy (P = 0.1760), 42/56 (75.0%) delivered, and 14/56 miscarried (25.0%). Adjustments for age and AMH values, barely moved the P-value (P = 0.2487), reaffirming the close match of both study groups.

Autologous non-donor cycles: fresh vs. frozen

Here, we had 741 fresh transfer cycles and 217 frozen cycles for comparison, with embryo numbers transferred again being similar, but patient characteristics significantly differing (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of autologous fresh non-donor to frozen autologous non-donor cycles

Patient characteristics

Patients who had fresh cycles were significantly older (41.2 ± 4.8 vs. 39.5 ± 5.9 years (P < 0.0001) and had significantly lower AMH (1.2 ± 1.7.vs. 2.4 ± 2.6 ng/mL; P < 0.0001) and significantly higher FSH (14.8 ± 12.7 vs. 11.5 ± 7.8; P = 0.0003) Embryo numbers transferred were, however, similar: 2.2 ± 1.2 vs. 2.1 ± 1.0 (P = 0.2536).

IVF outcomes

Fresh cycles in this head-to-head comparison demonstrated significantly lower clinical pregnancy rates (82/741; 11.1%) than frozen cycles (42/217; 19.4%; P = 0.0014). Yet, once outcomes were adjusted for age and AMH, the significant outcome difference between both groups became statistically insignificant (P = 0.2991). Of the pregnancies in frozen cycles, 26/42 (61.9%) delivered, while 16/42 (38.1%) miscarried. While in fresh cycles 53/82 (64.6%) delivered and 29/82 miscarried (35.4%), (P = 0.7648).

Autologous non-donor cycles: fresh vs. frozen cycles in favorably selected patients

Here, the frozen group remained the same as in the preceding comparison, but fresh cycles were selected for favorable patients by selecting cycles of 143 women who produced enough embryos in fresh cycles to have at least one embryo cryopreserved. That this group represented only 19.0% of all 741 fresh cycles, again reflects the overall poor prognosis of this patient cohort (Table 3). This left 598 cycles, now presumably representing women with average and poor prognoses (Table 4).

Table 3 Comparison of best-prognosis autologous fresh non-donor to frozen autologous non-donor cycles
Table 4 Comparison of intermediate and poor-prognosis autologous fresh non-donor cycles to frozen autologous non-donor cycles

Patient characteristics

In this analysis, demographics of favorably selected fresh cycle patients significantly differed from the preceding analysis: While in the whole group of 741 women, women with fresh had been significantly older than patients undergoing frozen-thawed cycles (Table 2), the now favorably selected women among that group of patients were significantly younger (37.1 ± 4.9 vs. 39.5 ± 5.9 years; P = 0.0001) than women having frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Moreover, neither AMH (2.4 ± 2.2 vs. 2.4 ± 2.6 ng/mL; P = 0.8457) nor FSH (10.9 ± 11.2 vs. 11.5 ± 7.8 mIU/mL; P = 0.5717) were any longer significantly different. In addition, a non-significant trend toward larger embryo transfer numbers developed in fresh cycles (2.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.1 ± 1.0; P = 0.0874).

Comparing the remaining 598 average and poor-prognosis patients between fresh and frozen transfers, patients who had fresh cycles were significantly older (42.2 ± 4.2 vs. 39.5 ± 5.9 years (P < 0.0001), had significantly lower AMH (0.9 ± 1.4.vs. 2.4 ± 2.6 ng/mL; P < 0.0001) and significantly higher FSH (15.8 ± 12.9 vs. 11.5 ± 7.8; P < 0.0001). Embryo numbers transferred were, however, again similar: 2.2 ± 1.2 vs. 2.1 ± 1.0 (P = 0.3874, Table 4).

IVF outcomes

In this scenario, however, 45/143 clinical pregnancies occurred in fresh cycles (31.5%) vs. only 42/217 (19.4%) in frozen cycles, producing a significant difference to the benefit of fresh cycles (P = 0.0086), which remained significant upon adjustment for age and AMH (P = 0.0451). Of the pregnancies in the frozen cycle, 26/42 (61.9%) delivered, while 16/42 (38.1%) miscarried. While in fresh cycles, 31/45 (68.9%) delivered and 14/45 miscarried (31.1%), (P = 0.4934).

In contrast, the remaining average- and poorer-prognosis patients, 37/598 (6.2%) had clinical pregnancies with 22 (59.5%) live births and 15 (40.5%) miscarriages. This was an insignificant finding when compared to frozen cycles (P = 0.8242, Table 4).


Due to our center’s very adversely selected patient population, widely applied infertility treatments are often not applicable. For example, closed incubation and imaging systems found in our patients produce similar outcomes to standard embryology in third-party egg donor cycles, but adversely affect IVF outcomes in poor-prognosis patients still pursuing treatments with autologous oocytes [14]. EB attracted skepticism for several reasons: In-house data questioned the hypothesis that ovarian hyperstimulation adversely affects embryo implantation [6, 15]. Especially in poorer-prognosis patients we also were concerned about the adverse effects of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy chances. We also questioned the additional costs of thaw cycles and, of course, noted that reported improved pregnancy and live birth rates after EB occurred only in good-prognosis patients [1,2,3, 10, 12]. Furthermore, with good-prognosis patients to minor degrees, benefit from EB since unselected patient populations demonstrate no consequences from EB, they must contain a counterbalancing group of patients who experience detrimental effects, such as older or younger women with low functional ovarian reserve (LFOR).

Here presented data confirmed this, leading to the following conclusions (i) In unselected patient populations EB does not improve IVF outcomes. (ii) In favorably selected patients, EB with reference embryo transfer minimally improves pregnancy and live birth chances. (iii) EB in poorer-prognosis patients, however, exert compensatory detrimental effects. (iv) All of these observations, as here demonstrated in a four-step study, also apply in poor-prognosis patients, and are here detailed:

Best prognosis patients: third-party egg donation cycles; fresh vs. frozen

A careful case-controlled study of practically identical patient groups in fresh and frozen third-party donor egg cycles (i.e., best-prognosis patients, Table 1), demonstrated no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (P = 0.1760) even after adjustments for age and AMH (P= 0.2487). This study can be viewed as a baseline control model, demonstrating no visible effect of embryo freezing on IVF outcomes in unselected patients and reaffirms prior prospectively randomized studies of unselected patient populations [11].

One unexpected observation, however, deserves further comments: In Table 1 reported almost identical miscarriage rates in donor-recipient cycles fresh (26.1%) or frozen thawed (25.0%), which are unexpectedly high for young third-party egg donors. The 2016 CDC National ART Summary Report suggested in third-party egg donation cycles only an approximately 10.4% miscarriage rate (, suggesting that here observed more than double as high rate in both study groups must reflect the very advanced (also practically identical) ages of both recipient patient groups (45.6 ± 5.1 and 45.7 ± 5.9 years, respectively). Surprisingly, the literature does not inform on miscarriage rates depending on recipient age. Two publications commented peripherally on the subject, with one noting no differences [16] and the other noting small increases in pregnancy losses [17]. Here reported outcome data, therefore, for the first time offer strong evidence that recipient age increases miscarriage risk. The likely reasons are accumulating medical problems, unrelated to the age of oocytes and, therefore, unrelated to chromosomal abnormalities.

Autologous non-donor cycles: fresh vs. frozen

In part two of here presented study, we switched to the investigation of the use of autologous oocytes in an, overall, highly unfavorable patient population and, as a first step, simply compared all fresh and all frozen-thawed cycles (Table 2). In contrast to previously described third-party donor cycles, demonstrated two highly divergent patient populations; Fresh cycles, not only were three times as common but also represented significantly older women (P < 0001), with much lower AMH (P < 0.0001) higher FSH (P = 0.0003), though a very similar number of transferred embryos. Women who underwent frozen-thawed cycles were not only significantly younger, but also had a much better functional ovarian reserve. That they achieved significantly better clinical pregnancy rates (P = 0.0014) with the transfer of identical embryo numbers (P = 0.2536), therefore, cannot surprise and does not suggest that this improved outcome is the consequence of delayed frozen-thawed embryo transfers.

This is confirmed by adjustment for age and AMH (as a representative of LFOR) making the significant difference in pregnancy rate disappear (P = 0.2991). Adjusting for FSH instead of AMH, made no difference (P = 0.1564). Since both reflect LFOR, we formally adjusted for only one (AMH). Seeing improvements in IVF cycle outcomes in frozen-thawed over fresh cycles with the use of autologous eggs, under those circumstances, therefore, are mostly due to underlying patient characteristics and not caused by EB.

Though both patient groups in this study section are significantly younger than in the above-presented third-party-donor section, fresh and frozen cycles, still, involved older women (41.2 ± 4.8 vs. 39.5 ± 5.9 years, respectively). Frozen cycles were, however, performed in younger women than fresh cycles (P < 0.0001). That miscarriages were nominally lower in frozen cycles (28.1%) than fresh cycles (35.4%) here, therefore, has no practical meaning. That miscarriages were uniformly higher in autologous than donor-recipient cycles, whether fresh or frozen, even though donor egg recipients were significantly older, is, however, of interest. Third-party egg donation in older women, therefore, clearly does reduce miscarriage risk in comparison to the use of autologous oocytes. Likely due to non-chromosomal maternal causes this advantage, however, shrinks with advancing recipient age.

Autologous non-donor cycles: fresh vs. frozen cycles in good-, intermediate- and poor-prognosis patients

Addressing the third and fourth steps of this study (Tables 3 and 4), we argued that every study population, including our 741 fresh cycles, can be divided into better- average- and poorer-prognosis patients [13]. Since, after female age, transferrable embryo numbers are the second-most important predictor of pregnancy chances in IVF [13], numbers of embryos produced in a cycle allow the identification of a best-prognosis sub-group. Further patient selection can be achieved by selecting patients who produced more embryos than immediately transferrable (i.e., achieved cryopreservation). Consequently, 143 (19%) women among 741 ended up qualified as best-prognosis patients. In the third study, they now were in fresh transfers compared to the 217 frozen embryo transfer cycles from the earlier analysis.

Changing the patient selection, of course, resulted in highly significant outcome changes: Women undergoing fresh cycles now were, suddenly, significantly younger (P = 0.0001) (previously significantly older) in the complete autologous group (P < 0.0001) and significant differences in AMH and FSH to the benefit of frozen cycles completely disappeared, together with all prior outcome advantages in pregnancy rates for frozen cycles (P = 0.0086 before and P = 0.0451 after adjustment for age and AMH).

Comparing then the remaining 598 moderate and poor-prognosis fresh cycles with the 217 frozen cycles, patient demographics again reverted into similar ranges as had been seen previously in Table 2 for the complete autologous patient populations, with frozen transfer cycles seemingly outperforming pregnancy rates in fresh cycles. (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0028, Table 4).

Limitations and conclusions

The principal limitation of this study is its retrospective nature. Considering the homogeneity of here utilized patient populations and statistical adjustments, this here presented study format, however, offers information even some well-designed prospectively randomized studies cannot provide. A 2018 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) study reached similar conclusions, suggesting that universal embryo freezing only serves good responders [5]. Since the completion of this study, another retrospective study in a general infertile population was published. Once again, the study demonstrated outcome benefits for an all-freeze strategy in only good-prognosis patients, this time defined as women below age 35 [18].

In poor-prognosis patients that were never before studied within this framework, every single oocyte and embryo is of much greater importance than in women with average and good prognoses. Therefore, they often are the “canary in the mine” in sounding the alarm about otherwise, ineffective treatments. Considering that ineffective treatments increase costs and, in this case, also result in delays in treatments, this study offers solid new evidence that the concept of universal all-freeze cycles with subsequently delayed frozen-thawed cycles must be reconsidered. Under the best of all circumstances, it should only be restricted to best-prognosis patients. Similar population dynamics are, likely, also relevant in association with other recent “add-ons” to IVF [8].



Our center, likely, serves the prognostically most unfavorable patient population among all reporting IVF centers in the U.S. We serve the oldest patient population with a median age of over 43 years between 2016–2019 (national median ~ 36 years). ( Over 90% of newly presenting patients have previously failed IVF cycles elsewhere, often at multiple centers, and over 50% have been advised that third-party egg donation is their only remaining chance of pregnancy. Our center also treats disproportionally large numbers of phenotype-D polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) patients, after age 35 more treatment-resistant than other PCOS phenotypes to standard fertility treatments, including IVF [19]. Even younger patients, almost without exception, also previously failed IVF cycles and presented with abnormal LFOR. Yet, as we previously demonstrated, even such an overwhelmingly unfavorable patient population is, still, made up of relatively good-, intermediate-, and poor-prognosis patients [13]. Our center’s patient population, therefore, appears well-suited for here presented retrospective case control studies between carefully selected sub-populations. Taking advantage of these circumstances, here presented study investigated between 2017 – 2020, in our center’s patient population the effects of embryo freezing, followed by thaw-cycles in infertile women in four distinct patient groupings:

  • (i) Here we compared IVF cycle outcomes in 127 infertile women who had fresh embryos transferred, produced from young anonymous egg donors and, therefore, represented best-prognosis patients, to 193 infertile women who had frozen-thawed embryos transferred, produced with oocytes from young donors (Table 1). Due to the very advanced ages in both recipient groups mandating avoidance of multiple pregnancies, almost all transfers were elective single embryo transfers. This model, thus, reflected EB in best-prognosis patients.

  • (ii) Here we compared outcomes in 741 fresh and 217 frozen embryo transfers, produced with autologous oocytes of infertility patients (Table 2) and, because of younger ages, numbers of transferred embryos were less restricted; small egg and embryo yields due to LFOR, however, still limited transferred embryos to mostly two. This model, thus, evaluated EB in average-prognosis infertility.

  • (iii & iv) Here we selected a favorable-prognosis group of 143 women from among above 741 unselected women and compared those two groups (Table 3). In addition, we also compared the remaining 598 unselected women to the same group of 217 frozen autologous IVF cycles, also used in the second investigation (Table 4). The selected sub-group of 143 prognostically favorable patients was defined by their ability to produce larger embryo yields in fresh IVF cycles, allowing for cryopreservation of extra-numeral embryos. This selection criterion was based on the reported observation that, even in poor-prognosis patients, after female age, the number of transferrable embryos in an IVF cycle represents the second-most important predictor of IVF success [13].

All patients were consecutively entered into the center’s anonymized electronic research data bank during the study years after providing informed consent. Excluded were repeat cycles and cycles that were cancelled before embryo transfer. The so-excluded patients obviously eliminated worst-prognosis patients. Here reported observations in poor-prognosis patients may, therefore, be mild underestimations.

IVF cycles

Oocyte donation cycles of anonymous egg donors were stimulated in long agonist protocols, using a human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) product at a dosage of 225 IU daily.

Autologous cycles were only initiated after prior priming of ovaries if patients were over age 40 years and/or demonstrated low functional ovarian reserve (LFOR), defined as abnormally high age-specific FSH [20] and/or abnormally low age-specific AMH [21]. Priming involved supplementation with dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; Fertinatal®, Fertility Nutraceuticals, LLC, New York, N.Y), 25 mg TID, for at least six weeks or until androgen and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) were in normal ranges. All patients, in addition, received the antioxidant CoQ10 at a dosage of 900-1000 mg/day (OvoEnergen®, Fertility Nutraceuticals, LLC, New York, N.Y.). A large majority of autologous cycles received direct gonadotropin stimulation, starting on day-2 of menses with daily gonadotropins (300–450 IU of an FSH product and 150 IU of an hMG product, both from different manufacturers based on patient preference and/or insurance mandates). Due to patients having undergone highly individualized egg retrieval (HIER) [22, 23] and, therefore, had early egg retrievals, they did not require either agonists or antagonists to prevent premature ovulation. The default method in some younger patients who were not expected to have early retrievals was a previously described microdose agonist protocol first reported by Surrey et al. [24]. Ovulation was triggered with 10,000 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, from different manufacturers).

Except for very rare exceptions in donor-recipient cycles, embryo transfers occurred at cleavage-stage (usually day-3; but sometimes day-2). Similarly, except for rare exceptions, embryos did not undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

A clinical diagnosis of pregnancy required visualization of at least one gestational sac with a fetal heart on ultrasound. A diagnosis of clinical miscarriage required at least prior visualization of a gestational sac. Chemical pregnancies were not considered in here reported statistics.

Statistical analyses

Patient demographics were compared by a two-sample t-test and presented as mean and standard deviation. Clinical pregnancies, live birth, and miscarriage rates were compared with a Chi-square test and logistic regression model, controlling for age and AMH. All statistics were performed using SAS version 9.4. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

This study was approved by the center’s IRB on an expedited basis since here reported data were extracted from the center’s anonymized electronic patient database, which includes all data from patients who signed a written consent that allowed the use of their medical record data for research purposes, as long as those data remained confidential, and their identity remained protected.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.



In vitro fertilization


Embryo banking


Anti-Müllerian hormone


Follicle-stimulating hormone


Low functional ovarian reserve


Polycystic ovarian syndrome




Sex hormone binding globulin


Highly individualized egg retrieval


Human chorionic gonadotropin


Human menopausal gonadotropin


Sex hormone binding globulin


Institutional Review Board


  1. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Restrepo H, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):389–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roque M, Valle M, Guimarães F, Sampalo M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(5):1190–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maheshwari A, Amalray Raja E, Bhattacharya S. Obstetrics and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority anonymized dataset. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(7):1703–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Acharya AS, Acharya CR, Bishop K, Harris B, Raburn D, Muasher SJ. Freezing of all embryos in in vitro fertilization is beneficial in high responders, but not intermediate ad low responders: an analysis of 82,935 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(5):880–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Orvieto R, Kirshenbaum M, Gleicher N. Is embryo cryopreservation causing macrosomia-and what else? Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken RJ, Harbottle S, Mocanu E, Hardarson T, Mathur R, Viville S, Vail A, Lundin K. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for “add-on” interventions? Hum Reprod. 2017;32(3):485–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Worldwide declines of in vitro fertilization (IVF) birth rates and their probable causes. Hum Reprod Open 2019;(3):hoz017

  9. Ben RZ. Should we still offer elective freezing of all embryos in all IVF cycles? Hum Reprod. 2020;35(10):2179–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wei D, Liu JY, Sun Y, Shi Y, Zhang B, Liu JQ, Tan J, Liang X, Cao Y, Wang Z, Qin Y, Zhao H, Zhou Y, Ren H, Hao G, Ling X, Zhao J, Zhang Y, Qi X, Zhang L, Deng X, Chen X, Zhu Y, Wang X, Tian LF, Lv Q, Ma X, Zhang H, Legro RS, Chen ZJ. Frozen versus fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulating women: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1310–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, Zhang H, Wei D, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, Deng X, Qi X, Li H, Ma X, Ren H, Wang Y, Zhang D, Wang B, Liu F, Wu Q, Wang Z, Bai H, Li Y, Zhou Y, Sun M, Liu H, Li J, Zhang L, Chen X, Zhang S, Sun X, Legro RS, Chen ZJ. Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):126–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stormlund S, Sopa N, Zedeler A, Bogstad J, Prætorius L, Svarre Nielsen H, Laczna Kitlinski M, Skouby SO, Mikkelsen AL, Lærke Spangmose A, Vikkelsø Jeppesen J, Khatibi A, la Cour FN, Ziebe S, Polyzos NP, Bergh C, Humaidan P. Freeze-all versus fresh blastocyst transfer strategy during in vitro fertilisation i women with regular menstrual cycles: muticentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;370:m2519.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Sen A, Darmon SK, Weghofer A, Wu Y-G, Wanh Q, Zhang L, Alertini DF, Barad DH. Definition by SH, AMH, and embryo numbers of good, intermediate- and poor-prognosis patients suggests previously unknown IVF outcome-determining factor associated with AMH. J Transl Med. 2016;14:171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu Y-G, Lazzroni-Tealdi E, Wang Q, Zhang L, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. Different effectiveness of closed embryo culture system with time-lapse imaging (EmbryoScope(TM)) in comparison to standard manual embryology in good and poor prognosis patients: a prospectively randomized pilot study. Reprod Endocrinol Biol. 2016;14(1):49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gleicher N, Kim A, Weghofer A, Barad D. Lessons from elective in vitro fertilization (IVF) in, principally, non-infertile women. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;10:48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Levran D, Ben-Shlomo I, Dor Z, Ben-Rafael Z, Nebel L, Mashiach S. Aging of endometrium and oocytes: observations on conception and abortion rates in an egg donation model. Fertil Steril. 1991;56(6):1091–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Toner JP, Grainger DA, Frazier LM. Clinical outcomes among recipients of donated eggs: an analysis of the U.S. national experience, 1996–1998. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(5):1038–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lattes K, López S, Checa MA, Brassesco M, Garcia D, Vassena R. A freeze-all strategy does not increase live birth rates in women of advanced reproductive age. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(10):2442–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gleicher N, Darmon S, Patrizio P, Barad DH. Reconsidering the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS). Biomedicines. 2022;10:1505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Barad DH, Weghofer A, Gleicher N. Age-specific levels of basal follicle stimulating hormone assessment of ovarian function. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1404–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barad DH, Weghofer A, Gleicher N. Utility of age-specific serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;22(3):284–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu YG, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Lazzaroni E, Wang Q, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. Aging-related premature luteinization of granulosa cells is avoided by early oocyte retrieval. J Endocrinol. 2015;226(3):167–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu Y-G, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Wang Q, Zhang L, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. With low ovarian reserve, Highly Individualized Egg Retrieval (HIER) improves IVF results by avoiding premature luteinization. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Surrey ES, Bower J, Hill DM, Ramsey J, Surrey MW. Clinical and endocrine effects of a microdose GnRH agonist flare regimen administered to poor responders who are undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(3):419–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Here presented data have not been reported elsewhere and will be made available to the editors of the journal for review or query upon request.


This study was supported by intramural grants from The Center for Human Reproduction and an unrestricted research grant from The Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, both located, in New York, N.Y., USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Study design, data analysis, first and last draft of the manuscript, and overall supervision: N.G.; Data collection, manuscript revisions, and statistical analyses: S.K.D.; Manuscript revisions, E.M., D.H.B., P.P.; All authors approved of the final manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norbert Gleicher.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients consented to the use of their medical records for research purposes, as long as those records were anonymized, prohibiting their identification. Since this study only involved anonymized electronic medical records and this condition, therefore, was met, this study was approved by the center’s IRB in expedited format.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

N.G. and D.H.B. are listed as co-owners of several already awarded and still pending U.S. patents, some claiming benefits from androgen supplementation in women with low functional ovarian reserve, a topic addressed in this manuscript. Others relate to diagnostic and potential therapeutic benefits of AMH, also marginally addressed in this manuscript. N.G. is a shareholder in Fertility Nutraceuticals, LLC, which produces a DHEA product, and is the owner of The CHR., where much of the research reported in this manuscript was performed. N.G. and D.H.B. also receive patent royalties from Fertility Nutraceuticals, LLC. N.G. and D.H.B. in the past have received research support, travel funding, and lecture fees from various Pharma and medical device companies, none, however, over the last three years and none in any way related to this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gleicher, N., Darmon, S.K., Patrizio, P. et al. The utility of all-freeze IVF cycles depends on the composition of study populations. J Ovarian Res 16, 190 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: