Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 3/2018

01-03-2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

No advantage of fresh blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer in women under the age of 39: a randomized controlled study

Authors: Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti, Federico Cirillo, Antonella Smeraldi, Emanuela Morenghi, Giulia E. G. Mulazzani, Elena Albani

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Is there a difference in implantation and pregnancy rates between embryos transferred electively at cleavage or blastocyst stage in infertile women ≤ 38 years with at least four zygotes on day 1 post retrieval?

Methods

A randomized clinical trial was conducted in a single tertiary care hospital with a sample size of 194 patients in each arm for a total population of 388 women. Patients less than 39 years of age with more than three fertilized oocytes and less than four previous assisted reproductive technology (ART) attempts were inclusion criteria.

Results

The two groups were similar for age, years of infertility, indication to treatment, basal antimüllerian hormone and FSH, number of previous ART cycles, primary or secondary infertility, type of induction protocol, days of stimulation, total gonadotrophin dose, and estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P) levels at trigger. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of number of retrieved oocytes, inseminated oocytes, fertilization rate, canceled transfers (7.73% in blastocyst and 3.61% in cleavage stage group), and cycles with frozen embryos and/or oocytes. Although a higher number of fertilized oocytes were in the blastocyst stage group (6.18 ± 1.46 vs 5.89 ± 1.54, p = 0.052), a statistically greater number of embryos/randomized cycle were transferred at cleavage stage (1.93 ± 0.371) compared with the number of transferred blastocysts (1.80 ± 0.56), probably due to the number of embryos not reaching blastocyst stage (3.09%). The implantation rate (28.37 vs 25.67%), pregnancy rate per cycle (36.06 vs38.66%), transfer (39.66 vs 40.11%), spontaneous abortions (19.72% vs 12.00%), delivery rate per cycle (27.84 vs 32.99%), and transfer (30.17 vs 34.22%) were not significantly different between the blastocyst and cleavage stage groups. The twin delivery rate was higher in the blastocyst stage group, although not significant (42.59 vs 28.12%). The mean numbers of frozen blastocyst (2.30 ± 1.40 vs 2.02 ± 1.00) and frozen oocytes (7.09 ± 3.55vs 6.79 ± 3.26) were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Fresh blastocyst-stage transfer versus cleavage-stage transfer did not show any significant difference in terms of implantation and pregnancy rate in this selected group of patients. A high twin delivery rate in both groups (35.59%) was registered, and although not significant, they were higher in the blastocyst transfer group (42.59 vs 28.12%). Our conclusion supports considering single embryo transfer (SET) policy, even in cleavage stage in patients younger than 39 years with at least four zygotes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02639000
Literature
1.
3.
4.
go back to reference Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20:117–26.CrossRefPubMed Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20:117–26.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014; Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;
6.
go back to reference Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review J Ovarian Res. 2017;10:21.CrossRefPubMed Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review J Ovarian Res. 2017;10:21.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Orvieto R. Re-analysis of aneuploidy blastocysts with an inner cell mass and different regional trophectoderm cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:827.CrossRefPubMed Orvieto R. Re-analysis of aneuploidy blastocysts with an inner cell mass and different regional trophectoderm cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:827.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106:244–50.CrossRefPubMed Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106:244–50.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Harton GL, Munné S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695–703.CrossRefPubMed Harton GL, Munné S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695–703.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Dar S, Lazer T, Shah PS, Librach CL. Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:439–48.CrossRefPubMed Dar S, Lazer T, Shah PS, Librach CL. Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:439–48.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Maheshwari A, Kalampokas T, Davidson J, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1615–21.e1-10.CrossRefPubMed Maheshwari A, Kalampokas T, Davidson J, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1615–21.e1-10.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia CR, Racowsky C. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2561–9.CrossRefPubMed Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia CR, Racowsky C. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2561–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Wang X, Du M, Guan Y, Wang B, Zhang J, Liu Z. Comparative neonatal outcomes in singleton births from blastocyst transfers or cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang X, Du M, Guan Y, Wang B, Zhang J, Liu Z. Comparative neonatal outcomes in singleton births from blastocyst transfers or cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Maheshwari A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;32:142–6.CrossRefPubMed Maheshwari A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;32:142–6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Matteo M, Morenghi E, Zannoni E, Baggiani AM, et al. Five years (2004-2009) of a restrictive law-regulating ART in Italy significantly reduced delivery rate: analysis of 10,706 cycles. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:343–9.CrossRefPubMed Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Matteo M, Morenghi E, Zannoni E, Baggiani AM, et al. Five years (2004-2009) of a restrictive law-regulating ART in Italy significantly reduced delivery rate: analysis of 10,706 cycles. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:343–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Levi Setti PE, Morenghi E, Sonia C, Galliera S, Arfuso V, Menduni F. Restrictive law regulating art in Italy significantly reduced delivery rate in infertile patients art cycles. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:S265–S6.CrossRef Levi Setti PE, Morenghi E, Sonia C, Galliera S, Arfuso V, Menduni F. Restrictive law regulating art in Italy significantly reduced delivery rate in infertile patients art cycles. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:S265–S6.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Cesana A, Novara PV, Zannoni E, Baggiani AM, et al. Italian Constitutional Court modifications of a restrictive assisted reproduction technology law significantly improve pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:376–81.CrossRefPubMed Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Cesana A, Novara PV, Zannoni E, Baggiani AM, et al. Italian Constitutional Court modifications of a restrictive assisted reproduction technology law significantly improve pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:376–81.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Levi-Setti PE, Borini A, Patrizio P, Bolli S, Vigiliano V, De Luca R, et al. ART results with frozen oocytes: data from the Italian ART registry (2005-2013). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:123–8.CrossRefPubMed Levi-Setti PE, Borini A, Patrizio P, Bolli S, Vigiliano V, De Luca R, et al. ART results with frozen oocytes: data from the Italian ART registry (2005-2013). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:123–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Levi-Setti PE, Patrizio P, Scaravelli G. Evolution of human oocyte cryopreservation: slow freezing versus vitrification. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2016;23:445–50.CrossRefPubMed Levi-Setti PE, Patrizio P, Scaravelli G. Evolution of human oocyte cryopreservation: slow freezing versus vitrification. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2016;23:445–50.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S174–7. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S174–7.
22.
go back to reference Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S89–92. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S89–92.
23.
go back to reference The Istambul Consensus workshop on embryo assessment:proceeding of an expert meeting. In. Vol. 26(6). Human Reprod, 2011;1270–83. The Istambul Consensus workshop on embryo assessment:proceeding of an expert meeting. In. Vol. 26(6). Human Reprod, 2011;1270–83.
24.
go back to reference Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:901–3.CrossRef Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:901–3.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Neilson JP, Danskin F, Hastie SJ. Monozygotic twin pregnancy: diagnostic and Doppler ultrasound studies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:1413–8.CrossRefPubMed Neilson JP, Danskin F, Hastie SJ. Monozygotic twin pregnancy: diagnostic and Doppler ultrasound studies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:1413–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Mneimneh A, Warner L, Boulet SL, Crawford S, et al. Embryo transfer practices and multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology: an opportunity for prevention. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:954–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Mneimneh A, Warner L, Boulet SL, Crawford S, et al. Embryo transfer practices and multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology: an opportunity for prevention. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:954–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:44–6.CrossRef Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:44–6.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1518–9.CrossRef Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1518–9.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–3.CrossRefPubMed Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–3.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Meldrum DR, Su HI. There’s no difference-are you sure? Fertil Steril. 2017;108(2):231–32. Meldrum DR, Su HI. There’s no difference-are you sure? Fertil Steril. 2017;108(2):231–32.
31.
go back to reference De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, Santos-Ribeiro S, Camus M, Van de Velde H, Tournaye H, 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;31:2442–9.CrossRefPubMed De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, Santos-Ribeiro S, Camus M, Van de Velde H, Tournaye H, 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;31:2442–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
No advantage of fresh blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer in women under the age of 39: a randomized controlled study
Authors
Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti
Federico Cirillo
Antonella Smeraldi
Emanuela Morenghi
Giulia E. G. Mulazzani
Elena Albani
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1092-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 3/2018 Go to the issue