Day 5 vs day 6 single euploid blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: which variables do have an impact on the clinical pregnancy rates?
Day 5
Day 6
Embryo quality
Endometrial preparation
Frozen-embryo transfer
PGT-A
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
22
09
2021
accepted:
13
12
2021
pubmed:
23
1
2022
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
22
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine which variables affect most the clinical pregnancy rate with positive fetal heartbeat (CPR FHB+) when frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles are performed with day 5 (D5) or day 6 (D6) euploid blastocysts. Design and method A single center retrospective study was performed from March 2017 till February 2021 including all single FET cycles with euploid D5 or D6 blastocysts and transferred in natural cycles (NC) or hormone replacement therapy (HRT) cycles. Trophectoderm (TE) and inner cell mass (ICM) qualities were recorded before biopsy. A total of 1102 FET cycles were included, 678 with D5 and 424 with D6 blastocysts. Pregnancy rate (PR), clinical PR (CPR), and CPR FHB+ were significantly higher with D5 blastocysts (PR: 70.7% vs 62.0%, OR = 0.68 [0.53-0.89], p = 0.004; CPR: 63.7% vs 54.2%, OR = 0.68 [0.52-0.96], p = 0.002 and CPR FHB+: 57.8% vs 49.8%, OR = 0.72 [0.53-0.96], p = 0.011). However, miscarriage rate (12.5% vs 11.4%, OR = 0.78 [0.48-1.26], p = 0.311) did not differ. From a multivariate logistic regression model, endometrial thickness (OR = 1.11 [1.01-1.22], p = 0.028), patient's age (OR = 1.03 [1.00-1.05], p = 0.021), BMI (OR = 0.97 [0.94-0.99], p = 0.023), and ICM grade C (OR = 0.23 [0.13-0.43], p < 0.001) were significant in predicting CPR FHB+. Although clinical outcomes are higher with D5 blastocysts, CPR FHB+ is more affected by endometrial thickness, patient age, BMI, and ICM grade C rather than biopsy day or endometrial preparation protocol.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35064434
doi: 10.1007/s10815-021-02380-1
pii: 10.1007/s10815-021-02380-1
pmc: PMC8956773
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
379-388Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Fertil Steril. 2017 Sep;108(3):393-406
pubmed: 28760517
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Aug;34(8):1007-1016
pubmed: 28560610
Hum Reprod. 2019 Sep 29;34(9):1632-1639
pubmed: 31402381
Fertil Steril. 2016 Nov;106(6):1370-1378
pubmed: 27565255
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020 Jun;36(6):479-483
pubmed: 32188299
Hum Reprod. 2014 Jun;29(6):1173-81
pubmed: 24578475
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Nov;36(11):2315-2324
pubmed: 31512049
Reprod Sci. 2021 Apr;28(4):1079-1091
pubmed: 33174188
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Aug;36(8):1561-1569
pubmed: 31385120
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Jan;36(1):145-151
pubmed: 30328573
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Oct;39(4):569-579
pubmed: 31395516
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):126-136
pubmed: 29320646
J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Jan 10;34(4):e27
pubmed: 30686949
BJOG. 2011 Dec;118(13):1551-6
pubmed: 21895955
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Nov;53:38-47
pubmed: 30146380
Chin Med J (Engl). 2018 Jun 05;131(11):1261-1267
pubmed: 29786036
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Feb 24;12:621221
pubmed: 33716973
Fertil Steril. 2018 Jul 1;110(1):95-102.e1
pubmed: 29908774
BMJ. 2020 Aug 5;370:m2519
pubmed: 32759285
Hum Reprod. 2018 Mar 1;33(3):390-398
pubmed: 29394365
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Jul;34(7):913-919
pubmed: 28500451
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 05;7:CD003414
pubmed: 28675921
Hum Reprod Update. 2013 Sep-Oct;19(5):458-70
pubmed: 23820515
Hum Reprod. 2019 Jan 01;34(1):44-51
pubmed: 30517719
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2019 Aug 22;23(3):268-272
pubmed: 30912633
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jul;33(7):873-84
pubmed: 27221477
Hum Reprod. 2010 Aug;25(8):1906-15
pubmed: 20542896
Theriogenology. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):73-80
pubmed: 17055564
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Apr;46(4):595-605
pubmed: 32022423
Fertil Steril. 2016 Apr;105(4):867-72
pubmed: 26820769
Zygote. 2019 Oct;27(5):279-284
pubmed: 31412960
J Clin Med Res. 2013 Aug;5(4):269-74
pubmed: 23864915
Fertil Steril. 2013 Feb;99(2):389-92
pubmed: 23062733
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 28;10:CD006359
pubmed: 33112418
Hum Reprod. 2019 Oct 2;34(10):1948-1964
pubmed: 31644803
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 13;15(1):e0227619
pubmed: 31929583
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jun;26(6):1270-83
pubmed: 21502182
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 Aug 04;11:499
pubmed: 32849288
Hum Reprod. 2016 Oct;31(10):2245-54
pubmed: 27591227
J Ovarian Res. 2021 Jan 23;14(1):18
pubmed: 33485390
Fertil Steril. 2017 Mar;107(3):664-670
pubmed: 28069172
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Feb;38(2):169-176
pubmed: 30579820
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Mar;38(3):595-604
pubmed: 33398514
Zygote. 2022 Feb;30(1):132-137
pubmed: 34184632
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;31(3):177-182
pubmed: 30855289
Fertil Steril. 2009 Feb;91(2):401-6
pubmed: 18304536
Lancet. 2019 Oct 5;394(10205):1227-1228
pubmed: 31303319
Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Apr;36(4):380-387
pubmed: 29398421
Fertil Steril. 2010 Nov;94(6):2054-8
pubmed: 20097333