Why is SG's FET rate with donor egg so much lower than the fresh transfer rate

[Anonymous]

I'm having a donor egg FET this week. The stats are pretty bad, 37% live birth rate, compared with about 50% with fresh.

I asked my doctor about this and he said the stats included embryos frozen under the old methods and couples coming back for a second child, but they DON'T. The stats say, VIA VITRIFICATION.

So why do doctors consistently say that fresh is as good as frozen and the danger of an embryo not surviving the thaw is low--I know friends when they thawed for testing always lose at least one embryo.

I only have one, and if it doesn't survive the thaw, then no transfer. I'd rather have that than a BFN, I guess, but then they should be freezing more embryos. EVERY lab I've talked to says the way that an embryo looks has nothing to do with the chances that it's normal. Consistently with friends, it's not their best-looking embryos that end up being genetically normal.

Are the doctors just trying to tell us what they think we want to hear, or do they really believe what they're saying in the face of the statistics and evidence? Has freezing/thawing/transferring suddenly gotten better than the statistics indicate?

I do know many women who have gotten pregnant from frozen embryos, particularly those that have been tested.

I don't trust this industry, but I am trying to make sense of this.

Then again, the stats don't matter once I have the transfer, IF my embryo makes it that far. It's then a yes/no question.

I'm so tired of battling this industry for proper service and real information.

[Anonymous]

You know what's strange about that is that when you look at their actual all inclusive FET live birth rate it's higher than their donor egg FET rate. Maybe it's because with donor egg more are doing eSET? I think the advantage fresh has over frozen is that the best embryo/s are selected for the fresh cycle.

I don't know a ton about embryo grading but I can tell you I did two cycles with crappy looking embryos without a pregnancy and got pregnant on my first donor cycle with a perfect hatched blast.

[Anonymous]

Most people I read about that had failed fresh transfers, went on to have a successful pregnancy with the DE frosties. If you have frozen embryos at SG, they are great embryos! I've never had any frozen (OE or DE), but am currently pregnant from some DEs graded BB.

[Anonymous]

My one frosty survived the thaw just fine....

[Anonymous]

12:34 here, I do agree that the thaw rate for vitrified embryos is well into the 90s at a SG.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure what the answer is on your stats question but I will say that my experience has given me full confidence in the FET process. For a variety of reasons, we initially froze all our DE embryos and have now done two eSET transfers with successful pregnancies both times.

[Anonymous]

My anecdote is that both times we defrosted single embryos, they survived. BFN both times, but that turned out to be likely due to a different structural problem with my uterus which we later resolved.

I think the thaw rate for vitrification is high. It's possible that the lower success rate may have to do with using second best embryos since the best were transferred fresh.

[Anonymous]

I could also see a scenario where in a fresh cycle, you have two types of women receiving the transfer: ones who have an easy time with implantation and ones who have something else going on that makes implantation/supporting pregnancy hard but may or may not have happened yet. A smaller percentage of the women who did get pregnant the first time are likely to return for FET (since they already had a child or children), so there could be some selection bias in the candidates for FET. Couple that with the eSET and grading issues other posters mentioned and you could have a meaningful movement on statistics

[Anonymous]

Do you really think that an embryo that has been frozen and thawed is the same as a fresh one?? Look at overall stats from around the country. Many states require accurate reporting of actual live births. It can be hard to get really accurate reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think that an embryo that has been frozen and thawed is the same as a fresh one?? Look at overall stats from around the country. Many states require accurate reporting of actual live births. It can be hard to get really accurate reports.

I don't think it's that simple. Even if the embryo isn't as good, the fact that a woman hasn't just been through a stim period and egg retrieval seems to help implantation rates. Also, the use of frozen eggs has statistically shown outcomes as good as fresh cycles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think that an embryo that has been frozen and thawed is the same as a fresh one?? Look at overall stats from around the country. Many states require accurate reporting of actual live births. It can be hard to get really accurate reports.

I don't think it's that simple. Even if the embryo isn't as good, the fact that a woman hasn't just been through a stim period and egg retrieval seems to help implantation rates. Also, the use of frozen eggs has statistically shown outcomes as good as fresh cycles.

Completely agree about the possible negative impact of a stim cycle on implantation, although that wouldn't be a factor in the OP's example of DE FETs.

[Anonymous]

SG rates are much lower than other clinics. Several now have better FET rates that are equal to or better than fresh.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/frozen-embryos-increase-chance-of-successful-ivf-pregnancy-8102875.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a donor egg FET this week. The stats are pretty bad, 37% live birth rate, compared with about 50% with fresh.


So why do doctors consistently say that fresh is as good as frozen and the danger of an embryo not surviving the thaw is low--I know friends when they thawed for testing always lose at least one embryo.

I only have one, and if it doesn't survive the thaw, then no transfer. I'd rather have that than a BFN, I guess, but then they should be freezing more embryos. EVERY lab I've talked to says the way that an embryo looks has nothing to do with the chances that it's normal. Consistently with friends, it's not their best-looking embryos that end up being genetically normal.
I'm so tired of battling this industry for proper service and real information.

Ive had this same question about why they dont freeze more embryos. I had 5 embryos left after my first IVF cycle, but they told me they would only freeze one (which was the best of the lot). Meanwhile, most of the people from my cycle who are now 12+ weeks pregnant had embryos that were not AA or BB, they were just average embryos not great embryos. So now, after I had a failed IVF cycle, I am left with ONLY ONE blast to transfer for my upcoming FET. I don't mean to be distrustful with the decisions my clinic make, it is just very confusing to me.