Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in Oocyte Donation Cycles.
blastocyst stage
cleavage stage
donation cycle
embryo transfer
frozen-thaw oocyte
Journal
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)
ISSN: 1648-9144
Titre abrégé: Medicina (Kaunas)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9425208
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jun 2019
20 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
06
02
2019
revised:
04
06
2019
accepted:
13
06
2019
entrez:
23
6
2019
pubmed:
23
6
2019
medline:
20
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During the last few years, a trend has been noted towards embryos being transferred at the blastocyst stage, which has been associated with improved rates regarding implantation and clinical pregnancy in comparison to cleavage stage embryo transfers. There is a limited number of studies investigating this notion in oocyte donation cycles employing cryopreserved embryos. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implantation potential and clinical pregnancy rates between the day 3 cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryo transfers in oocyte donation cycles employing vitrified embryos. This is a retrospective evaluation of oocyte donation frozen-thawed transfers completed in our clinic from January 2017 to December 2017. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was conducted for all oocytes. Following fertilization, all embryos were cryopreserved either at the cleavage or blastocyst stage. Embryo transfer of two embryos was performed under direct sonographic guidance in all cases. Results Our findings indicate that in oocyte donation cycles employing vitrified embryos, embryo transfer at the blastocyst stage is accompanied with a significant improvement in pregnancy rates and merits further investigation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
During the last few years, a trend has been noted towards embryos being transferred at the blastocyst stage, which has been associated with improved rates regarding implantation and clinical pregnancy in comparison to cleavage stage embryo transfers. There is a limited number of studies investigating this notion in oocyte donation cycles employing cryopreserved embryos. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implantation potential and clinical pregnancy rates between the day 3 cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryo transfers in oocyte donation cycles employing vitrified embryos.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a retrospective evaluation of oocyte donation frozen-thawed transfers completed in our clinic from January 2017 to December 2017. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was conducted for all oocytes. Following fertilization, all embryos were cryopreserved either at the cleavage or blastocyst stage. Embryo transfer of two embryos was performed under direct sonographic guidance in all cases. Results
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate that in oocyte donation cycles employing vitrified embryos, embryo transfer at the blastocyst stage is accompanied with a significant improvement in pregnancy rates and merits further investigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31226849
pii: medicina55060293
doi: 10.3390/medicina55060293
pmc: PMC6631639
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2755-8
pubmed: 10548617
Fertil Steril. 2000 Jan;73(1):126-9
pubmed: 10632426
Hum Reprod. 2000 Feb;15(2):476-84
pubmed: 10655327
Fertil Steril. 2000 Jun;73(6):1155-8
pubmed: 10856474
Hum Reprod. 2000 Sep;15(9):1947-52
pubmed: 10966992
Fertil Steril. 2000 Sep;74(3):482-6
pubmed: 10973642
N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 16;354(11):1139-46
pubmed: 16540614
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD002118
pubmed: 17943767
Hum Reprod. 2008 Jan;23(1):91-9
pubmed: 17965420
Fertil Steril. 2009 Mar;91(3):733-8
pubmed: 18314124
Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Feb;20(2):209-22
pubmed: 20113959
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010 Apr;36(2):357-63
pubmed: 20492388
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Sep;27(9-10):555-60
pubmed: 20676752
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):277-85
pubmed: 21718983
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):344-8
pubmed: 21737072
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 Dec;29(12):1357-62
pubmed: 23054364
Fertil Steril. 2013 Feb;99(2):389-92
pubmed: 23062733
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2012 Sep;39(3):114-7
pubmed: 23106042
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014 Apr;31(4):411-20
pubmed: 24477781
Fertil Steril. 2014 Oct;102(4):1006-1015.e4
pubmed: 25064408
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2014 Jul;7(3):194-7
pubmed: 25395745
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 Jan 11;13:3
pubmed: 25577140
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 May;32(5):705-12
pubmed: 25854656
Hum Reprod. 2015 Aug;30(8):1820-30
pubmed: 26089301
Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104(4):899-907.e3
pubmed: 26211882
J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2016 Jun;7(3):257-272
pubmed: 26611736
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Feb;32(2):142-6
pubmed: 26673100
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Apr;33(4):455-9
pubmed: 26861966
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jul;33(7):855-63
pubmed: 27007875
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 30;(6):CD002118
pubmed: 27357126
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Oct;33(10):1261-1272
pubmed: 27491772
BJOG. 2017 Mar;124(4):561-572
pubmed: 27592694
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;49(5):583-591
pubmed: 27731533
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Jan;35(1):127-134
pubmed: 28940130
Fertil Steril. 2018 Jul 1;110(1):89-94.e2
pubmed: 29908769
Fertil Steril. 1998 Jan;69(1):84-8
pubmed: 9457939