Sequential embryo transfer versus double cleavage-stage embryo or double blastocyst transfer in patients with recurrent implantation failure with frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a cohort study.
blastocyst transfer
cleavage-stage embryo transfer
frozen-thawed embryo transfer
repeated implantation failure
sequential embryo transfer
Journal
Frontiers in endocrinology
ISSN: 1664-2392
Titre abrégé: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
11
06
2023
accepted:
21
08
2023
medline:
26
9
2023
pubmed:
25
9
2023
entrez:
25
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is more common among patients receiving assisted reproductive treatment. Many efforts have been made to increase the incidence of clinical pregnancy among patients with RIF. The effect of the sequential transfer procedure, a two-step interval transfer of a cleavage-stage embryo followed by a blastocyst in one transfer cycle, on the clinical outcomes of RIF patients remains controversial. In total, 1774 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles in RIF patients were included. Of these cycles, 302 were sequential embryo transfer (ET) cycles, 979 were double day 3 cleavage-stage ET cycles, and 493 were double blastocyst ET cycles. The primary outcomes were the rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy, and the secondary outcomes were the rates of hCG positive, early miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. The implantation, hCG positive, and clinical pregnancy rates in the sequential ET group (32.1%, 58.9%, 50.7%) were significantly higher than those in the day 3 cleavage-stage ET group (24.9%, 46.5%, 40.4%) and were similar to those in the blastocyst transfer group (30.1%, 56.4%, 47.1%). The early miscarriage rate in the blastocyst transfer group was significantly higher than that in the cleavage-stage ET group (17.2% vs. 8.1%, Sequential embryo transfer in FET cycles could improve the clinical outcomes of patients with RIF.
Sections du résumé
Background
Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is more common among patients receiving assisted reproductive treatment. Many efforts have been made to increase the incidence of clinical pregnancy among patients with RIF. The effect of the sequential transfer procedure, a two-step interval transfer of a cleavage-stage embryo followed by a blastocyst in one transfer cycle, on the clinical outcomes of RIF patients remains controversial.
Methods
In total, 1774 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles in RIF patients were included. Of these cycles, 302 were sequential embryo transfer (ET) cycles, 979 were double day 3 cleavage-stage ET cycles, and 493 were double blastocyst ET cycles. The primary outcomes were the rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy, and the secondary outcomes were the rates of hCG positive, early miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
Results
The implantation, hCG positive, and clinical pregnancy rates in the sequential ET group (32.1%, 58.9%, 50.7%) were significantly higher than those in the day 3 cleavage-stage ET group (24.9%, 46.5%, 40.4%) and were similar to those in the blastocyst transfer group (30.1%, 56.4%, 47.1%). The early miscarriage rate in the blastocyst transfer group was significantly higher than that in the cleavage-stage ET group (17.2% vs. 8.1%,
Conclusions
Sequential embryo transfer in FET cycles could improve the clinical outcomes of patients with RIF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37745696
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1238251
pmc: PMC10515716
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1238251Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Gao, Yuan, Li, Tian, Lian, Liu, Li, Qiao, Long and Wang.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Dec 18;21(1):
pubmed: 31861484
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Jan;26(1):30-5
pubmed: 23182745
J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1988 Jun;5(3):175-6
pubmed: 3171328
Reprod Med Biol. 2003 Sep 26;2(3):133-137
pubmed: 29699176
Minerva Ginecol. 2016 Aug;68(4):431-49
pubmed: 26861762
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;49(5):583-591
pubmed: 27731533
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021 Sep 14;19(1):142
pubmed: 34521412
Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Jun;22(6):632-46
pubmed: 21481639
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Sep 22;2020(3):hoaa038
pubmed: 32995563
Tissue Cell. 2021 Dec;73:101656
pubmed: 34634636
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Dec;41(6):998-1006
pubmed: 32978074
Fertil Steril. 2000 Jun;73(6):1155-8
pubmed: 10856474
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Aug;19(4):222-7
pubmed: 24685368
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Jan;70:112-122
pubmed: 32859535
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019 Nov;35(11):955-959
pubmed: 31092077
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022 Oct;48(10):2563-2570
pubmed: 35868635
Fertil Steril. 2020 Aug;114(2):267-268
pubmed: 32741464
Nat Med. 2012 Dec;18(12):1754-67
pubmed: 23223073
Fertil Steril. 2010 Nov;94(6):2030-6
pubmed: 20338560
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021 Apr 27;25(2):185-192
pubmed: 33739797
JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Nov;168(11):1045-53
pubmed: 25222633
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Feb;38(2):133-137
pubmed: 30593441
J Med Life. 2022 Nov;15(11):1365-1370
pubmed: 36567833
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Jan;28(1):14-38
pubmed: 24269084
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Nov;53:30-37
pubmed: 30104130
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012 Dec;1822(12):1943-50
pubmed: 22683339
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Jan;40(1):91-97
pubmed: 31924493
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018 Dec 5;16(1):121
pubmed: 30518389
J Reprod Immunol. 2023 Feb;155:103780
pubmed: 36481385
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Mar 1;25(2):202-223
pubmed: 30624659
Reprod Med Biol. 2017 Jun 27;16(3):290-296
pubmed: 29259480
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2017 Jun;44(2):105-110
pubmed: 28795050