Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1/2018

01-01-2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis

Authors: MeiFang Zeng, SuQin Su, LiuMing Li

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

This systematic review sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of vitrification at the cleavage stage and blastocyst stage for embryo transfer in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Methods

We searched for related comparative studies published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2017. The primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and embryo implantation rate (IR). Secondary outcomes were multiple pregnancy rate (MPR), miscarriage rate (MR), live birth rate (LBR), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR). The Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model and random effects model were used to analyze the summary risks ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Eight studies with more than 6590 cycles were included in our meta-analysis. Seven studies were observational retrospective comparative studies. One was a prospective study. Overall, the current study summarizes information from 6590 vitrification warming cycles (cleavage stage n = 4594; blastocysts n = 1996). There was no difference in the primary outcome clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.90–1.04; fixed effects model; I 2  = 21%), whereas vitrified blastocyst transfer was significantly superior to vitrified cleavage-stage embryo transfer regarding the implantation rate (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74–0.97; random effects model; I 2  = 43). Regarding the secondary outcomes, no differences were found in the multiple pregnancy rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.79–1.82; fixed effects model; I 2  = 22), live birth rate (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.98–1.16; fixed effects model; I 2  = 0), and ongoing pregnancy rate (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.92–1.120; fixed effects model; I 2  = 0), whereas a higher miscarriage rate was observed with vitrified blastocyst transfer (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45–0.93; random effects model; I 2  = 23).

Conclusion

In summary, this meta-analysis shows that vitrification at any stage has no detrimental effect on clinical outcome. Blastocyst transfer will still remain a favorable and promising option in ART. Due to the small sample evaluated in the pool of included studies, large-scale, prospective, and randomized controlled trials are required to determine if these small effects are clinically relevant.
Literature
1.
Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1998;3(305):707–9.
2.
Ozgur K, et al. Perinatal outcomes after fresh versus vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer: retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(4):899–907.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Li Z, et al. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2794–801.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Wikland M, et al. Obstetric outcomes after transfer of vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1699–707.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:19–26.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zhu HY, et al. Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1371–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which one is better? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:270–4.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, et al. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(6):347–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Balaban B, et al. A randomized controlled study of human day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1976–82.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rall WF, Fahy GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at -196 C by vitrification. Nature. 1985;313:573–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wong YY, Wong YK. Phasing-in of vitrification into routine practice: why, how, and what. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17:119–26.PubMed
12.
Belva F, et al. Neonatal health including congenital malformation risk of 1072 children born after vitrified embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016;10:1093.
13.
Cobo A, et al. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1138–1146.e1.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Wilding MG, et al. Human cleavage-stage embryo vitrification is comparable to slowrate cryopreservation in cycles of assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:549–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Nakashima A, et al. Optimization of a novel nylon mesh container for human embryo ultrarapid vitrification. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:24052410.CrossRef
16.
Schoolcraft WB, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1700–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Raju GA, et al. Vitrification of human early cavitating and deflated expanded blastocysts: clinical outcome of 474 cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:523–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Vanderzwalmen P, et al. Aseptic vitrification of blastocysts from infertile patients, egg donors and after IVM. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;19:700–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
van Landuyt L, et al. Outcome of closed blastocyst vitrification in relation to blastocyst quality: evaluation of 759 warming cycles in a single-embryo transfer policy. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:527–34.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Liebermann J. Vitrification of human blastocysts: an update. 2009. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 4:4328.PubMed
21.
Jacobsen IA, Pegg DE, et al. Effect of cooling and warming rate on glycerolized rabbit kidneys. Cryobiology. 1984;21:637–53.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pegg DE. Ice crystals in tissues and organs. In: Pegg DE, Karow Jr AM, editors. The biophysics of organ preservation. New York: Plenum; 1987. p. 117–40.CrossRef
23.
Rubinsky B, Pegg ED. A mathematical model for the freezing process in biological tissue. Proc R Soc Lond. 1988;234:343–58.CrossRefPubMed
24.
De Vos A, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(11):2442–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Desai N, et al. What is the optimal stage for embryo vitrification-a comparison of embryo survival and clinical outcomes with day 3 cleavage versus blastocyst stage vitrification. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):S110.CrossRef
26.
Desai N, et al. The new Rapid-i carrier is an effective system for human embryo vitrification at both the blastocyst and cleavage stage. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11(44):2–9.
27.
Lee JH, et al. Effect of day-3 embryo and day-5 blastocyst stage at vitrification on clinical outcome of cryopreserved-embryo transfer cycles. Stockholm: Annual Meeting of ESHRE; 2011.
28.
Shaw SF. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:177–84.CrossRef
29.
Sugiyama R, et al. Clinical outcomes resulting from the transfer of vitrified human embryos using a new device for cryopreservation (plastic blade). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(4):161–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Tong GQ, et al. Clinical outcome of fresh and vitrified-warmed blastocyst and cleavage-stage embryo transfers in ethnic Chinese ART patients. J Ovarian Res. 2012;5:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Kamath M, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes following vitrified warmed day 5/6 blastocyst transfers using solid surface methodology with fresh blastocyst transfers. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6(1):59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Zhu D, et al. Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles—time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1691–5.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Blake D, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology (Review). Cochrane Libr. 2011;10
35.
Papanikolaou EG, et al. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1139–46.CrossRefPubMed
36.
SILLS ES, Palermo DG. Human blastocyst culture in IVF: current laboratory applications in reproductive medicine practice. Morphol Embryol. 2010;51(3):441–5.
37.
Fanchin R, et al. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1115–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Ata B, et al. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related with the number of embryos generated. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;24:614–20.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Carvalho BR, et al. Embryo stage of development is not decisive for reproductive outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21(1):23–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B. Implantation in assisted reproduction: a look at endometrial receptivity. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27:530–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Glujovsky D, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.
42.
43.
Marek D, et al. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1035e40.CrossRef
44.
Papanikolaou EG, et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:91e9.CrossRef
45.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S89e92.
46.
Dar S, et al. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus day 3 embryo transfer: Canadian ART Register (CARTR) analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:924e8.
47.
Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74:599e609.CrossRef
48.
Chang HJ, et al. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2381e90.CrossRef
49.
Blake D, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Collab. 2005;4:CD002118.
50.
Hreinsson J, et al. Embryo transfer is equally effective at cleavage stage and blastocyst stage: a randomized prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117(2):194–200.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Seki S, Mazur P. The dominance of warming rate over cooling rate in the survival of mouse oocytes subjected to a vitrification procedure. Cryobiology. 2009;59:75–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Desai N, et al. Artificial collapse of blastocysts before vitrification: mechanical vs. laser technique and effect on survival, cell number, and cell death in early and expanded blastocysts. Biopreserv Biobank. 2008;6:181–90.
53.
Martins WP, et al. Assisted hatching of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(4):438–53.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Zhu L, et al. Blastocyst culture and cryopreservation to optimize clinical outcomes of warming cycles. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27(2):154–60.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Feng GX, et al. Comparable clinical outcomes and live births after single vitrified–warmed and fresh blastocyst transfer. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25:466–73.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Ku P-Y, et al. Comparison of the clinical outcomes between fresh blastocyst and vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(12):1353–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Edi-Osagie E, Hooper L, Seif MW. The impact of assisted hatching on live birth rates and outcomes of assisted conception: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(9):1828–35.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Maheshwari A, Bhattacharya S. Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod. 2013;28:6–9.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Barsky M, et al. Are perinatal outcomes affected by blastocyst vitrification and warming? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:603.e1–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis
Authors
MeiFang Zeng
SuQin Su
LiuMing Li
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1040-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1/2018 Go to the issue

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Earlier day of blastocyst development is predictive of embryonic euploidy across all ages: essential data for physician decision-making and counseling patients

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Frozen embryo transfer can be performed in the cycle immediately following the freeze-all cycle

Genetics

Diagnosis of parental balanced reciprocal translocations by trophectoderm biopsy and comprehensive chromosomal screening

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Non-donors’ attitudes towards sperm donation and their willingness to donate

Fertility Preservation

Allogeneic ovarian transplantation using immunomodulator preimplantation factor (PIF) as monotherapy restored ovarian function in olive baboon

Review

Reproductive ovarian testing and the alphabet soup of diagnoses: DOR, POI, POF, POR, and FOR