Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 28.
Published in final edited form as: Fertil Steril. 2011 Feb;95(2):548–553. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.049

TABLE 1.

Comparison of patient and treatment characteristics in fresh versus frozen embryo transfer cycles.

Fresh (n = 218) Frozen (n = 122) P valuea
Source cycle
 Infertility diagnosis .680b
  Tubal 46 (21.1) 25 (20.5)
  Male factor 33 (15.1) 24 (19.7)
  Anovulation 39 (17.9) 25 (20.5)
  Unexplained 67 (30.7) 37 (30.3)
  Endometriosis 27 (12.4) 11 (9.1)
  Otherc 4 (1.8) 0 (0)
  Unknown 2 (0.9) 0 (0)
 Fertilization rate 67.21 ± .14 68.04 ± .16 .621
 ICSI 36 (16.5) 16 (13.1) .404
 OHSS 49 (22.5) 26 (21.3) .804
Embryo transfer cycle
 Parity 46 (21.1%) 47 (38.5%) <.001
 Age 33.53 ± 3.59 33.71 ± 3.70 .663
 Maximum E2 before embryo transfer 4921.8 ± 1503.6 335.3 ± 141.8 <.0001
 EMS thickness at transfer 11.21 ± 2.30 10.31 ± 2.21 .0006
 No. of embryos transfered 2.68 ± 0.78 2.90 ± 0.97 .022
Implantation rate
 Pregnancy plurality .002
  Singleton 122 (56.0)
OR 0.39
93 (76.2)
95% CI 0.23–0.67
.0002
  Twin 65 (29.8)
OR 2.63
17 (13.9)
95% CI 1.43–5.00
.001
  Triplet 6 (2.7)
OR 1.69
2 (1.6)
95% CI 0.3–20.00
.52

Note: Continuous variables presented as mean ± SD, other values as n (%). CI = confidence interval; EMS = endometrial stripe; ICSI = intracytoplasmic sperm injection; OHSS = ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; OR = odds ratio.

a

Generalized estimating equation adjustment for correlations.

b

Calculated after exclusion of other (n = 4) and unknown (n = 2), owing to small number of observations precluding use of chi-squared.

c

Other (n = 4): two with recurrent pregnancy loss, two with uterine abnormalities (bicornuate, fibroid).