Day 5 vitrified blastocyst transfer versus day 6 vitrified blastocyst transfer in oocyte donation program.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 05 2021
21 05 2021
Historique:
received:
31
01
2021
accepted:
04
05
2021
entrez:
22
5
2021
pubmed:
23
5
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The superiority of day 5 blastocysts compared to day 6 blastocysts in fresh cycle transfers was previously demonstrated and attributed mainly to endometrial asynchrony. Data from frozen blastocysts transfers showed conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneous patient population and embryo quality. The aim of this study was to compare clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) between transfers of vitrified day 5 blastocysts and day 6 blastocysts in oocyte donation, blastocyst-only cycles. In a retrospective, multi-center study, with a single oocyte donation program, a total of 1840 frozen embryo transfers (FET's) were analyzed, including 1180 day 5 blastocysts and 660 day 6 blastocysts transfers. Day 5 blastocyst transfers had better embryonic development and significantly higher CPRs (34.24% vs. 20.15%, P < 0.0001), higher LBRs (26.89% vs. 14.77%, P < 0.0001), less cycles to LBR (1.83 ± 0.08 vs. 2.39 ± 0.18, P = 0.003) and shorter time to LBRs (76.32 ± 8.7 vs. 123.24 ± 19.1 days, P = 0.01), compared to day 6 transfers, respectively. A multivariate stepwise logistic regression indicated, that day 5 transfer was an independent factor for CPRs (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.43-2.54, P < 0.001) and LBRs (OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.19-4.28, P = 0.01), regardless of embryo quality, compared to day 6. In conclusion, day 5 blastocysts in oocyte donation program have significantly higher CPRs and LBRs, and present shorter time to delivery, compared to day 6 blastocysts, regardless of embryo quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34021226
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90238-y
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-90238-y
pmc: PMC8139971
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
10715Références
BJOG. 2011 Dec;118(13):1551-6
pubmed: 21895955
Hum Reprod. 2018 Mar 1;33(3):390-398
pubmed: 29394365
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jul;33(7):865-72
pubmed: 27098058
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 Sep 30;11:546532
pubmed: 33101194
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2012 Sep;5(3):252-7
pubmed: 23531511
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Nov;35(5):494-510
pubmed: 28784335
Hum Reprod. 2017 Nov 1;32(11):2234-2242
pubmed: 29025055
Fertil Steril. 1999 Jan;71(1):15-21
pubmed: 9935110
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 30;(6):CD002118
pubmed: 27357126
Fertil Steril. 2010 May 1;93(7):2210-5
pubmed: 19268939
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016 May;71(5):301-6
pubmed: 27182827
Hum Reprod. 2010 Aug;25(8):1906-15
pubmed: 20542896
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Apr;46(4):595-605
pubmed: 32022423
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Mar;35(3):417-424
pubmed: 29204868
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Sep;29(3):305-10
pubmed: 25043891
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 28;10:CD006359
pubmed: 33112418
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jun 1;32(6):1238-1243
pubmed: 28398477
Hum Reprod. 2019 Oct 2;34(10):1948-1964
pubmed: 31644803
Fertil Steril. 2005 Jan;83(1):49-53
pubmed: 15652886
Hum Reprod. 2014 Jun;29(6):1173-81
pubmed: 24578475
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013 Apr;30(4):563-7
pubmed: 23443889
Fertil Steril. 2019 Oct;112(4):724-730
pubmed: 31248619
Fertil Steril. 2014 May;101(5):1331-6
pubmed: 24626061