When only one embryo is available, is it better to transfer on Day 3 or to grow on?

被引:25
作者
Xiao, Joyce S. [1 ]
Healey, Martin [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Talmor, Alon [2 ,5 ,6 ,7 ]
Vollenhoven, Beverley [2 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[2] Monash IVF, 252 Clayton Rd, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[3] Royal Womens Hosp, 20 Flemington Rd, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[4] Univ Melbourne, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[5] Monash Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[6] Monash Hlth, Womens & Newborn Programme, 246 Clayton Rd, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[7] Epworth Richmond, 89 Bridge Rd, Richmond 3121, Australia
关键词
Blastocyst; Cleavage-stage embryo; Embryo transfer; IVF; Live birth; Pregnancy rate; RECURRENT IMPLANTATION FAILURE; ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY; CLEAVAGE-STAGE; BLASTOCYST-STAGE; PREGNANCY; FERTILIZATION; SCORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.08.003
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Research question: In patients with only one embryo on Day 3 post-IVF treatment, does transferring the embryo into the uterine environment achieve a higher pregnancy rate than growing the embryo on with a plan to transfer at Day 4-6? Design: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in patients with only one viable embryo on Day 3 post-IVF treatment. Data were extracted from a standardized IVF database and included 1384 women who fulfilled this study's selection criteria. Outcomes of these embryos were followed up and stratified into two groups: embryos transferred on Day 3 and those grown on to Day 4-6. Pregnancy rate (biochemical and clinical) and live birth rates were analysed with logistic regression and adjusted using a parsimonious model for baseline patient characteristics. Results: Biochemical pregnancy (16.7% versus 9.5%, odds ratio [OR] 1.9, P = 0.001), clinical pregnancy (14.7% versus 6.8%, OR 2.35, P < 0.001) and live birth rates (9.7% versus 4.4%, OR 2.37, P = 0.002) were significantly higher in the Day 3 group than those in the group grown on to Day 4-6. These differences were still significant after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted OR 2.60, 3.71, 4.08, respectively, P < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings support Day 3 cleavage-stage embryo transfer instead of growing on to Day 4-6 for blastocyst-stage transfer when only a single embryo is available.
引用
收藏
页码:916 / 923
页数:8
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] To blastocyst or not to blastocyst? That is the question
    Alper, MM
    Brinsden, P
    Fischer, R
    Wikland, M
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2001, 16 (04) : 617 - 619
  • [2] Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst stage transfer comparing to early cleavage stage embryo transfer
    Aziminekoo, Elham
    Salehi, Maryam Sadat Mohseni
    Kalantari, Vahid
    Tehraninejad, Ensieh Shahrokh
    Haghollahi, Fedyeh
    Rashidi, Batool Hossein
    Zandieh, Zahra
    [J]. GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2015, 31 (11) : 880 - 884
  • [3] Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis
    Basile, Natalia
    del Carmen Nogales, Maria
    Bronet, Fernando
    Florensa, Mireia
    Riqueiros, Marissa
    Rodrigo, Lorena
    Garcia-Velasco, Juan
    Meseguer, Marcos
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2014, 101 (03) : 699 - +
  • [4] The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review (vol 19, pg 795, 2004)
    Blake, DA
    Proctor, M
    Johnson, NP
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2004, 19 (09) : 2174 - 2174
  • [5] Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHREaEuro
    Calhaz-Jorge, C.
    de Geyter, C.
    Kupka, M. S.
    de Mouzon, J.
    Erb, K.
    Mocanu, E.
    Motrenko, T.
    Scaravelli, G.
    Wyns, C.
    Goossens, V.
    Gliozheni, Orion
    Strohmer, Heinz
    Petrovskaya, Elena
    Tishkevich, Oleg
    Wyns, Christine
    Bogaerts, Kris
    Antonova, Irena
    Vrcic, Hrvoje
    Ljiljak, Dejan
    Rezabek, Karel
    Markova, Jitka
    Lemmen, Josephine
    Erb, Karin
    Soritsa, Deniss
    Gissler, Mika
    Tiitinen, Aila
    Royere, Dominique
    Tandler-Schneider, Andreas
    Uszkoriet, Monika
    Loutradis, Dimitris
    Tarlatzis, Basil C.
    Urbancsek, Janos
    Kosztolanyi, G.
    Bjorgvinsson, Hilmar
    Mocanu, Edgar
    Scaravelli, Giulia
    Lokshin, Vyacheslav
    Ravil, Valiyev
    Gudleviciene, Zivile
    Lopes, Giedre Belo
    Moshin, Veaceslav
    Simic, Tatjana Motrenko
    Vukicevic, Dragana
    Romundstad, Liv Bente
    Kurzawa, Rafael
    Calhaz-Jorge, Carlos
    Laranjeira, Ana Rita
    Rugescu, Ioana
    Doroftei, Bogdan
    Korsak, Vladislav
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2016, 31 (08) : 1638 - 1652
  • [6] Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management
    Coughlan, C.
    Ledger, W.
    Wang, Q.
    Liu, Fenghua
    Demirol, Aygul
    Gurgan, Timur
    Cutting, R.
    Ong, K.
    Sallam, H.
    Li, T. C.
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2014, 28 (01) : 14 - 38
  • [7] Recurrent implantation failure: gamete and embryo factors
    Das, Mausumi
    Holzer, Hananel E. G.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2012, 97 (05) : 1021 - 1027
  • [8] Day 2 embryo transfer (ET) and day 3 ET afford similar reproductive outcomes in the poor responder
    Dayal, Molina B.
    Frankfurter, David
    Athanasiadis, Ioanna
    Peak, Douglas
    Dubey, Anil
    Gindoff, Paul R.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2011, 95 (03) : 1130 - 1132
  • [9] De Geyter C., 2018, HUM REPROD, V33, P1586
  • [10] Prolonged blastomere movement induced by the delay of pronuclear fading and first cell division adversely affects pregnancy outcomes after fresh embryo transfer on Day 2: a time-lapse study
    Ezoe, Kenji
    Ohata, Kazuki
    Morita, Hirofumi
    Ueno, Satoshi
    Miki, Tetsuya
    Okimura, Tadashi
    Uchiyama, Kazuo
    Yabuuchi, Akiko
    Kobayashi, Tamotsu
    Montag, Markus
    Kato, Keiichi
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2019, 38 (05) : 659 - 668