Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T21:31:46.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of fifth day (D5) or sixth day (D6) frozen–thawed blastocysts on neonatal outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2016

Xue Wang
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Jingran Zhen
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Zhengyi Sun*
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China. Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Qi Yu
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Chengyan Deng
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Yuanzheng Zhou
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Hanbi Wang
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Fangfang He
Affiliation:
Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
*
All correspondence to: Zhengyi Sun. Reproductive Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China. Tel: +86 10 69156223. Fax: +86 10 69156223. E-mail: zhengyisuncn@163.com

Summary

This study aimed to compare the neonatal outcomes of transplanted fifth day (D5) or sixth day (D6) frozen–thawed blastocysts, aiming to provide guidance when choosing blastocyst recovery methods. The clinical data of 1109 patients that were performed for recovered blastocyst transplantation, as well as the data of 515 patients who had already delivered were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into single- or twins-birth groups according to blastocyst formation time (D5 or D6) and the number of fetus(es). The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate of the D5 group were all significantly higher than those in the D6 group (P < 0.05), and the biochemical pregnancy rate in the D5 group was significantly lower than that in the D6 group (P = 0.049). Other factors, including birth weight, birth length, incidence of low birth weight and sex ratio, differed between the D5 and D6 groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate in the D5 group were all significantly higher than that in the D6 group. The birth weight at D6 was prone to be heavier no matter the birth group, and the sex ratio in the D5 group was higher than that at D6, the difference in neonatal outcomes between the two groups was not statistically significant.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfarawati, S., Fragouli, E., Colls, P., Stevens, J., Gutiérrez-Mateo, C., Schoolcraft, W.B., Katz-Jaffe, M.G. & Wells, D. (2011). The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil. Steril. 95, 520–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronet, F., Nogales, M.C., Martínez, E., Ariza, M., Rubio, C., García-Velasco, J.A.. & Mesequer, M. (2015). Is there a relationship between time-lapse parameters and embryo sex? Fertil. Steril. 103, 396401.Google Scholar
Bu, Z., Chen, Z.J., Huang, G., Zhang, H., Wu, Q., Ma, Y., Shi, J., Xu, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, C., Zhao, X., Zhang, B., Huang, Y., Sun, Z., Kang, Y., Wu, R., Wu, X., Sun, H. & Sun, Y. (2014). Live birth sex ratio after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in china—an analysis of 121,247 babies from 18 centers. PLoS One 9, e113522.Google Scholar
Burgoyne, P.S. (1993). A Y-chromosomal effect on blastocyst cell number in mice. Development 117, 341–5.Google Scholar
Dar, S., Joanne, G. & Librach, C.L. (2013a). Reply: Extended culture and the risk of preterm delivery in singletons: confounding by indication. Hum. Reprod. 28, 2021–2.Google Scholar
Dar, S., Librach, C.L., Gunby, J., Bissonnette, F., Cowan, L. & IVF Directors Group of Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. (2013b). Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus day 3 embryo transfer: Canadian ART Register (CARTR) analysis. Hum. Reprod. 28, 924–8.Google Scholar
Fernando, D., Halliday, J.L., Breheny, S. & Healy, D.L. (2012). Outcomes of singleton births after blastocyst versus nonblastocyst transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril. 97, 579–84.Google Scholar
Gardner, D.K., Lane, M., Stevens, J., Schlenker, T. & Schoolcraft, W.B. (2000). Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil. Steril. 73, 1155–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glujovsky, D., Blake, D., Farquhar, C. & Bardach, A. (2012). Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7, CD002118.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Adán, A., Oter, M., Martínez-Madrid, B., Pintado, B. & De La Fuente, J. (2000). Differential expression of two genes located on the X chromosome between male and female in vitro-produced bovine embryos at the blastocyst stage. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 55, 146–51.Google Scholar
Hiraoka, K., Hiraoka, K., Miyazaki, M., Fukunaga, E., Horiuchi, T., Kusuda, T., Okano, S., Kinutani, M. & Kinutani, K. (2009). Perinatal outcomes following transfer of human blastocysts vitrified at day 5, 6 and 7. J. Exp. Clin. Assist. Reprod. 6, 4.Google Scholar
Källén, B., Finnström, O., Lindam, A., Nilsson, E., Nygren, K.G. & Olausson, P.O. (2010). Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil. Steril. 94, 1680–3.Google Scholar
Kalra, S.K., Ratcliffe, S.J., Barnhart, K.T. & Coutifaris, C. (2012). Extended embryo culture and an increased risk of preterm delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 120, 6975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, K., Ueno, S., Yabuuchi, A., Uchiyama, K., Okuno, T., Kobayashi, T., Segawa, T. & Teramoto, S. (2014). Women's age and embryo developmental speed accurately predict clinical pregnancy after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer. Reprod. Biomed. Online 29, 411–6.Google Scholar
Kovalevsky, G., Carney, S.M., Morrison, L.S., Boylan, C.F., Neithardt, A.B. & Feinberg, R.F. (2013). Should embryos developing to blastocysts on day 7 be cryopreserved and transferred: an analysis of pregnancy and implantation rates. Fertil. Steril. 100, 1008–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leese, H.J., Donnay, I. & Thompson, J.G. (1998). Human assisted conception: a cautionary tale. Lessons from domestic animals. Hum. Reprod. 13, 184202.Google Scholar
Levens, E.D., Whitcomb, B.W., Hennessy, S., James, A.N., Yauger, B.J. & Larsen, F.W. (2008). Blastocyst development rate impacts outcome in cryopreserved blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil. Steril. 90, 2138–43.Google Scholar
Liebermann, J. (2009). Vitrification of human blastocysts: an update. Reprod. Biomed. Online 19, 4328.Google Scholar
Maalouf, W.E., Mincheva, M.N., Campbell, B.K. & Hardy, I.C. (2014). Effects of assisted reproductive technologies on human sex ratio at birth. Fertil. Steril. 101, 1321–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mäkinen, S., Söderström-Anttila, V., Vainio, J., Suikkari, A.M. & Tuuri, T. (2013). Does long in vitro culture promote large for gestational age babies. Hum. Reprod. 28, 828–34.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, U. (1993). Blastocysts prepare for the race to be male. Hum. Reprod. 8, 1550–5.Google Scholar
Muthukumar, K., Kamath, M.S., Mangalaraj, A.M., Aleyamma, T., Chandy, A. & George, K. (2013). Comparison of clinical outcomes following vitrified warmed day 5/6 blastocyst transfers using solid surface methodology with fresh blastocyst transfers. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 6, 5964.Google Scholar
Nelissen, E.C., Van Montfoort, A.P., Coonen, E., Derhaag, J.G., Geraedts, J.P., Smits, L.J., Land, J.A., Evers, J.L. & Dumoulin, J.C. (2012). Further evidence that culture media affect perinatal outcome: findings after transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos. Hum. Reprod. 27, 1966–76.Google Scholar
Oron, G., Sokal-Arnon, T., Son, W.Y., Demirtas, E., Buckett, W., Zeadna, A., Holzer, H. & Tulandi, T. (2014). Extended embryo culture is not associated with increased adverse obstetric or perinatal outcome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 211, 165.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pergament, E., Fiddler, M., Cho, N., Johnson, D. & Holmgren, W.J. (1994). Sexual differentiation and preimplantation cell growth. Hum. Reprod. 9, 1730–2.Google Scholar
Sazonova, A., Källen, K., Thurin-Kjellberg, A., Wennerholm, U.B. & Bergh, C. (2011). Obstetric outcome after in vitro fertilization with single or double embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod. 26, 442–50.Google Scholar
Shapiro, B.S., Daneshmand, S.T., Garner, F.C., Aguirre, M. & Ross, R. (2008). Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of day 5 or day 6 blastocysts embryo-endometrium may reflect differences in synchrony. Fertil. Steril. 89, 20–6.Google Scholar
Sunkara, S.K., Siozos, A., Bolton, V.N., Khalaf, Y., Braude, P.R. & El-Toukhy, T. (2010). The influence of delayed blastocyst formation on the outcome of frozen–thawed blastocyst transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. 25, 1906–15.Google Scholar
Van Voorhis, B.J. & Dokras, A. (2008). Delayed blastocyst transfer: is the window shutting? Fertil. Steril. 89, 31–2.Google Scholar
Walker, S.K., Hartwich, K.M. & Robinson, J.S. (2000). Long-term effects on offspring of exposure of oocytes and embryos to chemical and physical agents. Hum. Reprod. Update 6, 564–77.Google Scholar
Young, L.E., Sinclair, K.D. & Wilmut, I. (1998). Large offspring syndrome in cattle and sheep. Rev. Reprod. 3, 155–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed