Cleavage vs blastocyst stage embryos: how are they interrelating?
Blastocysts
Cleavage-stage embryos
Good quality embryo (GQE)
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
02
09
2020
accepted:
11
02
2021
pubmed:
24
2
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
entrez:
23
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the variables that may predict which cleavage-stage embryo may develop into a blastocyst, and vice versa, to determine whether the cleavage-stage embryo morphology should be taken into consideration when transferring the embryo at the blastocyst stage. A single center, retrospective cohort study. The study cohort included 3072 patients undergoing 3607 retrieval cycles and 23,124 embryos at the cleavage stage. We assessed the blastulation rate and evaluated which variables impact the ongoing pregnancy rate. High blastulation rate correlates with higher embryos' grading (I > II > III > IV > V) and higher number of blastomeres (8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4). 949 patients had fresh single blastocyst transfers. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 28.9% per transfer. Patients with ongoing pregnancies were significantly younger (34.3 vs. 36 years, p < 0.001), had higher number of oocyte yield (9.8 vs. 9, p = 0.02), and an increased rate of good-quality embryos transferred (70.7% vs. 47.7%, p = 0.001). When evaluating embryos progression, we found that whenever embryo developed to a good-quality blastocyst, its appearance at the cleavage stage did not affect ongoing pregnancy rate. Higher the number of blastomeres and better embryo grading were found to correlate with a higher blastulation rate. Nevertheless, if the embryo has already developed to a top-quality blastocyst, its morphology at the cleavage stage did not impact ongoing pregnancy rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33620556
doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06003-z
pii: 10.1007/s00404-021-06003-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1083-1088Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.
Références
Majumdar G et al (2017) Relationship between morphology, euploidy and implantation potential of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. J Hum Reprod Sci 10(1):49–57
pubmed: 28479756
pmcid: 5405648
De Vos A et al (2016) Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod 31(11):2442–2449
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew219
Glujovsky D et al (2016) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD002118
Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, Van Der Poel SZ, Gracia CR, Racowsky C (2016) Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 31(11):2561–2569
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew244
Racowsky C et al (2000) The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 73(3):558–564
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00565-8
Xiao JS et al (2019) When only one embryo is available, is it better to transfer on day 3 or to grow on? Reprod Biomed Online 39(6):916–923
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.08.003
Haas J et al (2019) What is the optimal timing of embryo transfer when there are only one or two embryos at cleavage stage? Gynecol Endocrinol 35(8):665–668
doi: 10.1080/09513590.2019.1580259
Heitmann RJ et al (2013) The simplified SART embryo scoring system is highly correlated to implantation and live birth in single blastocyst transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 30(4):563–567
doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-9932-1
Barrenetxea G et al (2005) Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril 83(1):49–53
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.049
Karaki RZ et al (2002) Blastocyst culture and transfer: a step toward improved in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 77(1):114–118
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02939-9
Schroder AK et al (2004) Cumulative pregnancy rates and drop-out rates in a German IVF programme: 4102 cycles in 2130 patients. Reprod Biomed Online 8(5):600–606
doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61110-8
Glujovsky D et al (2012) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD002118
Schwarzler P et al (2004) Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 19(9):2097–2102
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh398
Zhao H et al (2020) Clinical outcomes following frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers with blastocysts derived from different cell numbers on day 3: a retrospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet 37(3):641–648
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01664-x
Shapiro BS, Harris DC, Richter KS (2000) Predictive value of 72-h blastomere cell number on blastocyst development and success of subsequent transfer based on the degree of blastocyst development. Fertil Steril 73(3):582–586
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00586-5
Luna M et al (2008) Human blastocyst morphological quality is significantly improved in embryos classified as fast on day 3 (> or = 10 cells), bringing into question current embryological dogma. Fertil Steril 89(2):358–363
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.030
Vermey BG et al (2019) Is there an association between oocyte number and embryo quality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 39(5):751–763
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.06.013
van Loendersloot LL et al (2010) Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 16(6):577–589
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq015
Verberg MF et al (2009) The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 15(1):5–12
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmn053
Sunkara SK et al (2011) Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 26(7):1768–1774
doi: 10.1093/humrep/der106
Aizer A, Haas J, Shimon C, Konopnicki S, Barzilay E, Orvieto R (2020) Is there any association between the number of oocytes retrieved, women age, and embryo development? Reprod Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-020-00391-4
doi: 10.1007/s43032-020-00391-4
pubmed: 33237517