Transfer of Day 6 Frozen-Thawed Blastocysts on Day 5 Compared with Day 6: Catching Up with the Window of Implantation-a Retrospective Study.
Blastulation
Cryopreservation
Day-6 blastocyst transfer
Frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET)
Implantation
Journal
Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)
ISSN: 1933-7205
Titre abrégé: Reprod Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291249
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
10
09
2020
accepted:
05
01
2021
pubmed:
12
1
2021
medline:
6
1
2022
entrez:
11
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) of day (D-) 6 blastocysts on D-5 versus D-6. A retrospective cohort study. A university-affiliated single-center tertiary hospital. Women undergoing FET of D-6 blastocysts between August 2015 and March 2019 were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were endometriosis and maternal age ≥ 42. Cycles involving embryo transfer (ET) at D-6 were compared to cycles involving ET on D-5. Primary outcomes assessed were CPR and LBR, and the secondary outcomes were spontaneous abortion and chemical pregnancy rates. Forty-two cycles were assessed, 21 in which ET occurred on D-6 and 21 in which ET occurred on D-5. There were no significant differences between groups regarding age, body mass index (BMI), etiology of infertility, number of oocytes aspirated and blastocysts cryopreserved in the fresh cycle, reason for freezing on D-6, endometrial thickness before ET, and blastocyst grade. A comparison of outcomes of ET on D-5 with those involving ET on D-6 revealed that D-5 transfer produced significantly higher CPR (8, 38% vs. 2, 8.5%; P = 0.030) and LBR (6, 28.6% vs. 1, 4.8%; P = 0.038), respectively. FET of D-6 embryos on D-5 compared with D-6 is associated with increased CPR and LBR values. These findings might be related to the limited time window for optimal rates of implantation and indicate that transferring embryos on D-6 of a FET cycle is likely too late.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33428126
doi: 10.1007/s43032-021-00458-w
pii: 10.1007/s43032-021-00458-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2208-2215Informations de copyright
© 2021. Society for Reproductive Investigation.
Références
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;23:91–9.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem339
Stanger J, Wong J, Conceicao J, Yovich J. Vitrification of human embryos previously cryostored by either slow freezing or vitrification results in high pregnancy rates. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;24:314–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.11.013
Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55.
pubmed: 27827818
Shapiro BS, Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST. A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:1126–30.
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01771-X
Barrenetxea G, López de Larruzea A, Ganzabal T, Jiménez R, Carbonero K, Mandiola M. Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:49–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.049
Poulsen V, Ingerslev HJ, Kirkegaard K. Elective embryo transfers on day 6 reduce implantation compared with transfers on day 5. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1238–43.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex059
Elgindy E, Elsedeek MS-E-A. Day 5 expanded blastocysts transferred on same day have comparable outcome to those left for more extended culture and transferred on day 6. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:1111–5.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9837-4
Liebermann J, Tucker MJ. Comparison of vitrification and conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:20–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.029
Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman L, Attaran M, Goldberg JM, Austin C, et al. Delayed blastulation, multinucleation, and expansion grade are independently associated with live-birth rates in frozen blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1370–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1095
Haas J, Meriano J, Laskin C, Bentov Y, Barzilay E, Casper RF, et al. Clinical pregnancy rate following frozen embryo transfer is higher with blastocysts vitrified on day 5 than on day 6. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1553–7.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-016-0818-x
Tubbing A, Shaw-Jackson C, Ameye L, Colin J, Rozenberg S, Autin C. Increased live births after day 5 versus day 6 transfers of vitrified-warmed blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:417–24.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-017-1097-x
Behr B, Gebhardt J, Lyon J, Milki AA. Factors relating to a successful cryopreserved blastocyst transfer program. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:697–9.
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)03267-8
Levens ED, Whitcomb BW, Hennessy S, James AN, Yauger BJ, Larsen FW. Blastocyst development rate impacts outcome in cryopreserved blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:2138–43.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.029
Wang X, Zhen J, Sun Z, Yu Q, Deng C, Zhou Y, et al. Effects of fifth day (D5) or sixth day (D6) frozen-thawed blastocysts on neonatal outcomes. Zygote. 2016;24:684–91.
doi: 10.1017/S0967199415000696
Kaye L, Will EA, Bartolucci A, Nulsen J, Benadiva C, Engmann L. Pregnancy rates for single embryo transfer (SET) of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts after cryopreservation by vitrification and slow freeze. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:913–9.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-017-0940-4
Boostanfar R, Shapiro B, Levy M, Rosenwaks Z, Witjes H, Stegmann BJ, et al. Large, comparative, randomized double-blind trial confirming noninferiority of pregnancy rates for corifollitropin alfa compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist controlled ovarian stimulation protocol in older patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:94–103.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.018
Racowsky C, Stern JE, Gibbons WE, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, Biggers JD. National collection of embryo morphology data into Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System: associations among day 3 cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry, and live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1985–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.009
Irani M, Zaninovic N, Rosenwaks Z, Xu K. Does maternal age at retrieval influence the implantation potential of euploid blastocysts? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220:379.e371–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1103
Kroener L, Ambartsumyan G, Briton-Jones C, Dumesic D, Surrey M, Munné S, et al. The effect of timing of embryonic progression on chromosomal abnormality. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:876–80.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.06.014
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;29:1173–81.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu033
Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Wilson JM, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Comparison of aneuploidy, pregnancy and live birth rates between day 5 and day 6 blastocysts. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:305–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.001
Gasser RF. Atlas of human embryos. 1st ed: Medical Dept; 1975.
O’Rahilly RR, Müller F. Human Embryology and Teratology. 3rd ed: Wiley; 2001.
Boron WF, Boulpaep EL. Medical physiology: a cellular and molecular approach. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2005.
Harper MJ. The implantation window. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;6:351–71.
doi: 10.1016/S0950-3552(05)80092-6
Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR. Time of implantation of the conceptus and loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1796–9.
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199906103402304
Horcajadas JA, Pellicer A, Simón C. Wide genomic analysis of human endometrial receptivity: new times, new opportunities. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:77–86.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dml046
Díaz-Gimeno P, Horcajadas JA, Martínez-Conejero JA, Esteban FJ, Alamá P, Pellicer A, et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:50–60 60.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.063
Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Fernández-Sánchez M, Carranza F, et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:818–24.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.004
Díaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Bosch N, Martínez-Conejero JA, Alamá P, et al. The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:508–17.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.046
Neves AR, Devesa M, Martínez F, Garcia-Martinez S, Rodriguez I, Polyzos NP, et al. What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1901–8.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01535-5
Bassil R, Casper R, Samara N, Hsieh T-B, Barzilay E, Orvieto R, et al. Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1301–5.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1190-9
Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Patounakis G, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, et al. Investigating the impact of the timing of blastulation on implantation: management of embryo-endometrial synchrony improves outcomes. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;2018:hoy022.
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoy022
Montagut M, Santos-Ribeiro S, De Vos M, Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Mackens S, et al. Frozen-thawed embryo transfers in natural cycles with spontaneous or induced ovulation: the search for the best protocol continues. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2803–10.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew263