Top

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Published in:

01-08-2014 | Embryo Biology

The importance of the cleavage stage morphology evaluation for blastocyst transfer in patients with good prognosis

Authors: Daniela P. A. F. Braga, Amanda S. Setti, Rita C. S. Figueira, Assumpto Iaconelli Jr., Edson Borges Jr.

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 8/2014

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate: (i) the influence of morphology at cleavage stage on blastocyst formation and implantation, and (ii) whether the transfer of low-quality embryos on day-three would be a better approach than the transfer at blastocyst stage.

Methods

This study included 8,444 embryos obtained from 1,125 patients undergoing ICSI cycles between January/2011 and September/2013. The influence of the quality of the embryo on days-two and -three on blastocyst formation and implantation success was evaluated. Moreover, the implantation potential of low-quality embryos, at cleavage stage, transferred on day-three was compared with the implantation potential of low-quality embryos, at cleavage stage, transferred on day-five.

Results

Low-quality embryos on day-two had an approximate 20 % decreased chance of achieving the blastocyst stage, and blastocysts derived from low-quality embryos on day-two had a nearly 40 % decrease in the implantation chance. Low-quality embryos on day-three had a 30 % decreased chance of achieving the blastocyst stage, and blastocysts derived from low-quality embryos on day-three had an almost 40 % decreased implantation chance. The implantation rate didn’t differ when low-quality embryos on the cleavage stage were transferred on day-three or left in culture and transferred on day-five.

Conclusions

The transfer of low-quality embryos on day-three is a better approach than transfer at the blastocyst stage. In addition, the embryo morphology evaluation at the cleavage stage is still needed for the selection of the embryo with the best implantation potential in extended embryo culture programmes.

Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3289–96.PubMedCrossRef

Aydin S, Cinar O, Demir B, Korkmaz C, Ozdegirmenci O, Dilbaz S, et al. Is pronuclear scoring a really good predictor for ICSI cycles? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2011;27(10):742–7.PubMedCrossRef

Balaban B, Urman B, Isiklar A, Alatas C, Aksoy S, Mercan R, et al. The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2357–61.PubMed

Lundin K, Bergh C, Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(12):2652–7.PubMedCrossRef

Lan KC, Huang FJ, Lin YC, Kung FT, Hsieh CH, Huang HW, et al. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1299–306.PubMedCrossRef

Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, Garello C, Gennarelli G, Revelli A, et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(2):548–57.PubMedCrossRef

Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM, Price TM, Jamison MG, Walmer DK. Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(4):900–9.PubMedCrossRef

Nagy ZP, Dozortsev D, Diamond M, Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Abdelmassih R, et al. Pronuclear morphology evaluation with subsequent evaluation of embryo morphology significantly increases implantation rates. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(1):67–74.PubMedCrossRef

Racowsky C, Vernon M, Mayer J, Ball GD, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, et al. Standardization of grading embryo morphology. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(8):437–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

ALPHA’scientists. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270–83.CrossRef

11.

Paternot G, Devroe J, Debrock S, D’Hooghe TM, Spiessens C. Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7:105.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

12.

Filho ES, Noble JA, Wells D. A review on automatic analysis of human embryo microscope images. Open Biomed Eng J. 2010;4:170–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

13.

Kovalevsky G, Patrizio P. High rates of embryo wastage with use of assisted reproductive technology: a look at the trends between 1995 and 2001 in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):325–30.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(10):1115–21.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1277–85.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Chen AA, Tan L, Suraj V, Reijo Pera R, Shen S. Biomarkers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, validation, and practical application. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):1035–43.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Rienzi L, Vajta G, Ubaldi F. Predictive value of oocyte morphology in human IVF: a systematic review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;17(1):34–45.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, Pedersen KS, Martinez M, Perez-Cano I, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(7):569–73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

20.

Ottosen LD, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev J. Light exposure of the ovum and preimplantation embryo during ART procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(2–3):99–103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

21.

Mio Y, Maeda K. Time-lapse cinematography of dynamic changes occurring during in vitro development of human embryos. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):660. e1-5.PubMed

22.

Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J. Early morphological signs of embryonic genome expression in human preimplantation development as revealed by quantitative electron microscopy. Dev Biol. 1988;128(1):15–20.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):551–5.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Ryan GL, Sparks AE, Sipe CS, Syrop CH, Dokras A, Van Voorhis BJ. A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):354–60.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Blastocyst versus day 2 or 3 transfer. Semin Reprod Med. 2001;19(3):259–68.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Westphal LM, Hinckley MD, Behr B, Milki AA. Effect of ICSI on subsequent blastocyst development and pregnancy rates. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(3):113–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

27.

Sepulveda SJ, Portella JR, Noriega LP, Escudero EL, Noriega LH. Extended culture up to the blastocyst stage: a strategy to avoid multiple pregnancies in assisted reproductive technologies. Biol Res. 2011;44(2):195–9.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Huisman GJ, Fauser BC, Eijkemans MJ, Pieters MH. Implantation rates after in vitro fertilization and transfer of a maximum of two embryos that have undergone three to five days of culture. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):117–22.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Gardner DK, Vella P, Lane M, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(1):84–8.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Fisch JD, Dasig D, Behr B. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):126–9.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4, CD002118.PubMed

32.

Braga DP, Setti AS, de Cassia SFR, Machado RB, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Patient selection criteria for blastocyst transfers in extended embryo culture programs. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(12):1357–62.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

33.

Kirkegaard K, Kesmodel US, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(10):2643–51.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Palermo GD, Colombero LT, Rosenwaks Z. The human sperm centrosome is responsible for normal syngamy and early embryonic development. Rev Reprod. 1997;2(1):19–27.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, 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(1):91–9.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update. 1997;3(4):367–82.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. No longer neglected: the human blastocyst. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(12):3289–92.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Tsirigotis M. Blastocyst stage transfer: pitfalls and benefits. Too soon to abandon current practice? Hum Reprod. 1998;13(12):3285–9.PubMedCrossRef

39.

ASRM, SART. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5 Suppl 1):S89–92.

40.

Sermondade N, Delarouziere V, Ravel C, Berthaut I, Verstraete L, Mathieu E, et al. Characterization of a recurrent poor-quality embryo morphology phenotype and zygote transfer as a rescue strategy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(4):403–9.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Levitas E, Lunenfeld E, Har-Vardi I, Albotiano S, Sonin Y, Hackmon-Ram R, et al. Blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in patients who failed to conceive in three or more day 2–3 embryo transfer cycles: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):567–71.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Thomas MR, Sparks AE, Ryan GL, Van Voorhis BJ. Clinical predictors of human blastocyst formation and pregnancy after extended embryo culture and transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):543–8.PubMedCrossRef

43.

ASRM. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(3):667–72.CrossRef

44.

Montag M, Liebenthron J, Koster M. Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development? Placenta. 2011;32 Suppl 3:S252–6.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Zhang JQ, Li XL, Peng Y, Guo X, Heng BC, Tong GQ. Reduction in exposure of human embryos outside the incubator enhances embryo quality and blastulation rate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20(4):510–5.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Ciray HN, Aksoy T, Yaramanci K, Karayaka I, Bahceci M. In vitro culture under physiologic oxygen concentration improves blastocyst yield and quality: a prospective randomized survey on sibling oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4 Suppl):1459–61.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Fujiwara M, Takahashi K, Izuno M, Duan YR, Kazono M, Kimura F, et al. Effect of micro-environment maintenance on embryo culture after in-vitro fertilization: comparison of top-load mini incubator and conventional front-load incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(1):5–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

48.

Biggers JD, Racowsky C. The development of fertilized human ova to the blastocyst stage in KSOM (AA) medium: is a two-step protocol necessary? Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;5(2):133–40.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Sepulveda S, Garcia J, Arriaga E, Diaz J, Noriega-Portella L, Noriega-Hoces L. In vitro development and pregnancy outcomes for human embryos cultured in either a single medium or in a sequential media system. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1765–70.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Basile N, Morbeck D, Garcia-Velasco J, Bronet F, Meseguer M. Type of culture media does not affect embryo kinetics: a time-lapse analysis of sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2012;28(3):634–41.CrossRef

Title: The importance of the cleavage stage morphology evaluation for blastocyst transfer in patients with good prognosis
Authors: Daniela P. A. F. Braga
Amanda S. Setti
Rita C. S. Figueira
Assumpto Iaconelli Jr.
Edson Borges Jr.
Publication date: 01-08-2014
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 8/2014
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0266-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The importance of the cleavage stage morphology evaluation for blastocyst transfer in patients with good prognosis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2014

Efficacy of ovarian tissue cryopreservation in a major European center

Alginate encapsulation supports the growth and differentiation of human primordial follicles within ovarian cortical tissue

Development of a high-yield technique to isolate spermatogonial stem cells from porcine testes

Annexin V magnetic-activated cell sorting versus swim-up for the selection of human sperm in ART: is the new approach better then the traditional one?

Twists and turns in the business of gonadal stem cells

The efficiency of a donor-recipient program using infertile donors’ egg cryo-banking: A Brazilian reality