Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:15:12.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frozen–thawed cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in high responder patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2020

Maryam Eftekhar ,
Banafsheh Mohammadi Open the ORCID record for Banafsheh Mohammadi [Opens in a new window] ,
Nasim Tabibnejad  and
Maryam Mortazavi Lahijani
Maryam Eftekhar
Affiliation:
Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Banafsheh Mohammadi*
Affiliation:
Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Nasim Tabibnejad
Affiliation:
Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Maryam Mortazavi Lahijani
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Rafsanjan, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Banafsheh Mohammadi. Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Bouali Ave, Safayieh, Yazd8916877391, Iran. Tel: +98 353 8247085-6. Fax: +98 353 824 7087. E-mail: banafsheh.mo1360@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Clinical outcomes following frozen–thawed cleavage embryo transfer versus frozen–thawed blastocyst transfer in high responder patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles are still debated. In a retrospective study, 106 high responder patients who were candidate for ‘freeze-all embryos’ were recruited. Frozen–thawed embryos were transferred at the cleavage stage (n = 53) or the blastocyst stage (n = 53). Clinical pregnancy was considered as the primary outcome and chemical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, implantation rate, and fertilization rate, as well as miscarriage rate, were measured as the secondary outcome. Clinical (47.2% vs. 24.5%), chemical (56.6% vs. 32.1%), and ongoing pregnancy rates (37.7% vs. 17%) as well as implantation rates (33.6% vs. 13.5%) were significantly higher in the blastocyst group compared with the cleavage group respectively (P < 0.05). Miscarriage rate was comparable between groups (P > 0.05). Transfer of frozen–thawed embryos at the blastocyst stage was preferable in the high responder patients to increase implantation, pregnancy and live birth rates compared with cleavage stage embryo transfer.

Keywords

ARTBlastocystCleavage embryo transferClinical outcomeHigh responder
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 511 - 515
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Carvalho, BR, Barbosa, MW, Bonesi, H, Gomes, DBS, Cabral, IO, Barbosa, AC, Silva, AA, Iglesias, JR and Nakagawa, HM (2017). Embryo stage of development is not decisive for reproductive outcomes in frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles. JBRA Assist Reprod 21, 23–6.Google Scholar
De Vos, A, Van Landuyt, L, Santos-Ribeiro, S, Camus, M, Van De Velde, H, Tournaye, H and Verheyen, G (2016). Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod 31, 2442–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eftekhar, M, Aflatoonian, A, Mohammadian, F and Tabibnejad, N (2012a). Transfer of blastocysts derived from frozen–thawed cleavage stage embryos improved ongoing pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286, 511–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eftekhar, M, Mohammadian, F, Yousefnejad, F, Molaei, B and Aflatoonian, A (2012b). Comparison of conventional IVF versus ICSI in non-male factor, normoresponder patients. Iran J Reprod Med 10, 131–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Fasano, G, Fontenelle, N, Vannin, AS, Biramane, J, Devreker, F, Englert, Y and Delbaere, A (2014). A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 31, 241–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Schoolcraft, WB, Wagley, L, Schlenker, T, Stevens, J and Hesla, J (1998). A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 13, 3434–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR and Blake, D (2016). Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD002118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissin, DM, Kulkarni, AD, Mneimneh, A, Warner, L, Boulet, SL, Crawford, S, Jamieson, DJ and National ARTSSG (2015). Embryo transfer practices and multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology: an opportunity for prevention. Fertil Steril 103, 954–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kontopoulos, G, Simopoulou, M, Zervomanolakis, I, Prokopakis, T, Dimitropoulos, K, Dedoulis, E, Grigorakis, S, Agapitou, K, Nikitos, E, Rapani, A and Vlahos, N (2019). Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in oocyte donation cycles. Medicina (Kaunas) 55, 293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi-Setti, PE, Cirillo, F, Smeraldi, A, Morenghi, E, Mulazzani, GEG and Albani, E (2018). No advantage of fresh blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer in women under the age of 39: a randomized controlled study. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 457–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesut, N, Ciray, HN, Mesut, A, Aksoy, T and Bahceci, M (2011). Cryopreservation of blastocysts is the most feasible strategy in good responder patients. Fertil Steril 96, 1121–5 e1.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.08.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, Kolibianakis, EM, Tournaye, H, Venetis, CA, Fatemi, H, Tarlatzis, B and Devroey, P (2008). Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 23, 91–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address ASRM@asrm.org; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2017). Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 107, 901–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Electronic address asrm@asrm.org (2018). Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 110, 1246–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salem, HEH, Mosa, AA, Matar, EER and Elsamanoudy, AA (2019). Day 3 embryo transfer versus day 5 embryo transfer versus day 6 embryo transfer in cases of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Egypt J Hosp Med 74, 1128–36.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Hudson, C and Thomas, S (2011). Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen–thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 96, 344–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Garner, FC and Aguirre, M (2019). The freeze-all cycle: a new paradigm shift in ART. In Nagy, Z, Varghese, A and Agarwal, A (eds) In Vitro Fertilization. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
Shi, W, Zhang, W, Li, N, Xue, X, Liu, C, Qu, P, Shi, J and Huang, C (2019). Comparison of perinatal outcomes following blastocyst and cleavage-stage embryo transfer: analysis of 10 years’ data from a single centre. Reprod Biomed Online 38, 967–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, JJ, Jeong, Y, Nho, E and Jee, BC (2018). Clinical outcomes of frozen embryo transfer cycles after freeze-all policy to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Obstet Gynecol Sci 61, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smeltzer, S, Acharya, K, Truong, T, Pieper, C and Muasher, S (2019). Clinical pregnancy and live birth increase significantly with every additional blastocyst up to five and decline after that: an analysis of 16,666 first fresh single-blastocyst transfers from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril 112, 866–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, MR, Sparks, AE, Ryan, GL and Van Voorhis, BJ (2010). Clinical predictors of human blastocyst formation and pregnancy after extended embryo culture and transfer. Fertil Steril 94, 543–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, K, Zhao, H, Liu, H, Li, M, Ma, S, Li, C, Liu, C and Chen, ZJ (2014). Day 3 ET, single blastocyst transfer (SBT) or frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET): which is preferable for high responder patients in IVF/ICSI cycles? J Assist Reprod Genet 31, 275–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaca, C, Bazzocchi, A, Pennetta, F, Bonu, MA, Coticchio, G and Borini, A (2018). Cumulative live birth rate in freeze-all cycles is comparable to that of a conventional embryo transfer policy at the cleavage stage but superior at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 110, 703–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, L, Xi, Q, Zhang, H, Li, Y, Ai, J and Jin, L (2013). Blastocyst culture and cryopreservation to optimize clinical outcomes of warming cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 27, 154–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, Q, Zhu, J, Wang, Y, Wang, B, Wang, N, Yin, M, Zhang, S, Lyu, Q and Kuang, Y (2019). Live birth rate and neonatal outcome following cleavage-stage embryo transfer versus blastocyst transfer using the freeze-all strategy. Reprod Biomed Online 38, 892–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed