Top

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Multiple Pregnancy | Research

Trade-off between double cleavage-stage embryos transfer and single blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in patients with few good quality embryos in antagonist cycles: a retrospective study using a propensity score matching analysis

Authors: Yan Han, Xing Deng, Jiali Cai, Wei Peng, Chaoqun Duan, Kezhen Huang

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the per OPU clinical outcomes for transfer of Day 3 double cleavage-stage embryos (DET) and Day 5 single blastocyst-stage (SBT) in patients with five or fewer good quality embryos on day 3 per occyte pick-up cycle (OPU) in antagonist cycles with consideration of blastocyst formation failure.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of 2,116 cases of OPU treated with antagonist protocol in the affiliated Chenggong Hospital of Xiamen University between January 2013 and December 2020. DET was performed in 1,811cycles and SBT was performed in 305 cycles. The DET group was matched to the SBT group by propensity score (PS) matching according to multiple maternal baseline covariates. After PS matching, there were 303 ET cycles in each group. The primary outcomes were the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR), cumulative multiple pregnancy rate(CMPR)per OPU and the number of ET to achieve live birth per OPU. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of clinical pregnancy(CPR), live birth rate(LBR), multiple pregnancy rate(MPR).

Results

Following PS mating, the CLBR was slightly higher (48.8% versus 40.3% ; P = 0.041) and the CMPR was significantly higher in the DET group compared to SBT group(44.2% versus 7.9%, P < 0.001). The CPR, LBR and MPR per fresh transfer were higher in DET group compared to SBT group(50.2% versus 28.7%; 41.3% versus 21.5%;29.6% versus 0%, P < 0.001). The number of ET to achieve live birth per OPU in SBT group was obiviously more than in DET group(1.48 ± 0.578 versus 1.22 ± 0.557 ,P < 0.001).

Conclusion

With a marginal difference cumulative live birth rate, the lower live birth rate per fresh transfer and higher number of ET per OPU in the SBT group suggested that it might take longer time to achieve a live birth with single blastocyst strategy. A trade-off decision should be made between efficiency and safety.

Available only for authorised users

Meldrum DR, Adashi EY, Garzo VG, Gleicher N, Parinaud J, Pinborg A, et al. Prevention of in vitro fertilization twins should focus on maximizing single embryo transfer versus twins are an acceptable complication of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:223–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.005.CrossRefPubMed

Vega M, Zaghi S, Buyuk E, Jindal S. Not all twins are monozygotic after elective single embryo transfer: analysis of 32,600 elective single embryo transfer cycles as reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:118–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.003.CrossRefPubMed

Martin C, Chang J, Boulet S, Jamieson DJ, Kissin D. Factors predicting double embryo implantation following double embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology: implications for elective single embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Gen. 2016;33:1343–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0770-9.CrossRef

Lee AM, Connell MT, Csokmay JM, Styer AK. Elective single embryo transfer- the power of one. Contracept Reproductive Med. 2016;1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-016-0023-4.

Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1139–46. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa053524.CrossRefPubMed

Wang S, Sun H. Blastocyst transfer ameliorates live birth rate compared with Cleavage-Stage Embryos Transfer in Fresh in Vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: reviews and Meta-analysis. Yonsei Med J. 2014;55:815. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2014.55.3.815.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Glujovsky D, Quinteiro RA, Alvarez SC, Ciapponi A, Cornelisse S, Blake D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5:D2118. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6.CrossRef

Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta‐analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obst Gyn. 2017;49:583–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17327.CrossRef

Eftekhar M, Mohammadi B, Tabibnejad N, Mortazavi Lahijani M. Frozen–thawed cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in high responder patients. Zygote. 2020;28:511–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199420000428.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Holden EC, Kashani BN, Morelli SS, Alderson D, Jindal SK, Ohman-Strickland PA, et al. Improved outcomes after blastocyst-stage frozen-thawed embryo transfers compared with cleavage stage: a society for assisted Reproductive technologies Clinical outcomes Reporting System study. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.033.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:835–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050.CrossRef

12.

Berkkanoglu M, Coetzee K, Bulut H, Ozgur K. Optimal embryo transfer strategy in poor response may include freeze-all. J Assist Reprod Gen. 2017;34:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0825-y.CrossRef

13.

Neblett MF, Kim T, Jones TL, Baumgarten SC, Coddington CC, Zhao Y et al. Is there still a role for a cleavage-stage embryo transfer? F&S reports. 2021;2:269–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2021.06.004.

14.

Jones GM, Trounson AO, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Factors affecting the success of human blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:1022–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00342-2.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cameron NJ, Bhattacharya S, McLernon DJ. Cumulative live birth rates following blastocyst- versus cleavage-stage embryo transfer in the first complete cycle of IVF: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:2365–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa186.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Bolton VN, Wren ME, Parsons JH. Pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and transfer of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:830–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54257-5.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Vlaisavljevic V, Kovacic B, Reljic M, Lovrec VG, Sajko MC. Is there any benefit from the culture of a single oocyte to a blastocyst-stage embryo in unstimulated cycles? Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2379–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.11.2379.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kovacic B, Vlaisavljević V, Reljic M, Gavrić LV. Clinical outcome of day 2 versus day 5 transfer in cycles with one or two developed embryos. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:529–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(01)03212-5.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Yang J, Li D, Zha H, Yabin C, Bie J, Song J, et al. Should blastocyst transfer be performed in patients with 1–3 embryos available on day 3? Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45:1118–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.08.100.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Xiao JS, Healey M, Talmor A, Vollenhoven B. When only one embryo is available, is it better to transfer on Day 3 or to grow on? Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39:916–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Agarwal A, Said TM, Bedaiwy MA, Banerjee J, Alvarez JG. Oxidative stress in an assisted reproductive techniques setting. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:503–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.088.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Jurisicova A, Acton BM. Deadly decisions: the role of genes regulating programmed cell death in human preimplantation embryo development. Reproduction. 2004;128:281–91. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00241.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Wu H, Lin Y, Lan K. Twin live births following transfer using eight-cell cleavage stage embryos on day 4 with developmental arrest. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;50:381–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2010.06.001.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Papanikolaou EG, D’Haeseleer E, Verheyen G, Van de Velde H, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3198–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei217.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Cai J, Liu L, Chen J, Liu Z, Jiang X, Chen H, et al. Day-3-embryo fragmentation is associated with singleton birth weight following fresh single blastocyst transfer: a retrospective study. Front Endocrinol. 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.919283.

26.

Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00518-5.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA, MatchIt. Nonparametric preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference. J Stat Softw. 2011;42. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i08.

28.

Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2703–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev263.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Fernandez-Shaw S, Cercas R, Brana C, Villas C, Pons I. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0387-9.CrossRefPubMed

30.

De Croo I, Colman R, De Sutter P, Stoop D, Tilleman K. No difference in cumulative live birth rates between cleavage versus blastocyst transfer in patients with four or fewer zygotes: results from a retrospective study. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac031.

31.

Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.029. :244 – 50.

32.

The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Hum Reprod Open. 2017;2017:x11. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hox011.CrossRef

33.

Long X, Wang Y, Wu F, Li R, Chen L, Qian W, et al. Pregnancy outcomes of Single/Double blastocysts and cleavage embryo transfers: a Retrospective Cohort Study of 24,422 frozen-thawed cycles. Reprod Sci. 2020;27:2271–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-020-00247-x.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Xue X, Li W, Li M. Optimal number of high-quality cleavage-stage embryos for extended culture to blastocyst-stage for transfer in women 38 years and older. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2023;39:2181642. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2023.2181642.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Adamson GD, Norman RJ. Why are multiple pregnancy rates and single embryo transfer rates so different globally, and what do we do about it? Fertil Steril. 2020;114:680–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.048. :825 – 34.

37.

Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Transferring more than one embryo simultaneously is justifiable in most patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.010.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Garcia-Belda A, Cairo O, Martinez-Moro A, Cuadros M, Pons MC, de Mendoza M, et al. Considerations for future modification of the Association for the Study of Reproductive Biology embryo grading system incorporating time-lapse observations. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024;48:103570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103570.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Lee T, Natalwala J, Chapple V, Liu Y. A brief history of artificial intelligence embryo selection: from black-box to glass-box. Hum Reprod. 2024;39:285–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead254.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Jiang Y, Wang L, Wang S, Shen H, Wang B, Zheng J, et al. The effect of embryo selection using time-lapse monitoring on IVF/ICSI outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2023;49:2792–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15797.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Ovarian ST, Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI(dagger). Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020:a9. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa009.CrossRef

42.

Kol S. Embryo implantation and GnRH antagonists: GnRH antagonists in ART: lower embryo implantation? Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1881–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.9.1881.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Meng Y, Guo Y, Qian Y, Guo X, Gao L, Sha J, et al. Effects of GnRH antagonist on endometrial protein profiles in the window of implantation. Proteomics. 2014;14:2350–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201400145.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Van Vaerenbergh I, Van Lommel L, Ghislain V, In ‘T, Veld P, Schuit F, Fatemi HM, et al. In GnRH antagonist/rec-FSH stimulated cycles, advanced endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte retrieval correlates with altered gene expression. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1085–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den501.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Roque M, Valle M, Guimarães F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1190–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.045.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Sainte-Rose R, Petit C, Dijols L, Frapsauce C, Guerif F. Extended embryo culture is effective for patients of an advanced maternal age. Sci Rep. 2021;11:13499. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92902-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Trade-off between double cleavage-stage embryos transfer and single blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in patients with few good quality embryos in antagonist cycles: a retrospective study using a propensity score matching analysis
Authors: Yan Han
Xing Deng
Jiali Cai
Wei Peng
Chaoqun Duan
Kezhen Huang
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Multiple Pregnancy
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06537-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Trade-off between double cleavage-stage embryos transfer and single blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in patients with few good quality embryos in antagonist cycles: a retrospective study using a propensity score matching analysis

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor in vaginally collected amniotic fluid predicting fetal inflammatory response syndrome: a prospective cohort study

“We decided together”: a qualitative study about women with HIV navigating infant-feeding decisions with the father of their children

The relationship between Iranian women’s perception of their birth team’s compliance with medical ethics and their perception of labor pain

Maternal and obstetric outcomes following the transfer of embryos warmed with fatty acid-supplemented solutions

The application of plasma circRAD18 in the prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and its adverse effects

Anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy may not be safe during pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review