https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v21i11.14656
statistics
- 185 Abstract Views
- 113 PDF Views
- 0 HTML Views
authors
-
Zahra Parsafar
Zahra Parsafar
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
-
Razieh Dehghani-Firouzabadi
Razieh Dehghani-Firouzabadi
Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Published Date
- Dec 14, 2023
Comparing the pregnancy outcomes of cleavage and blastocyst stage in frozen embryo transfer cycles: A cross-sectional study
Abstract
Background: In vitro fertilization has advanced in many ways, and new techniques are challenging. Blastocyst transfer is an alternative method for embryo transfer (ET) to improve in vitro fertilization outcomes.
Objective: The present study was performed to determine the effect of pregnancies resulting from ET in the blastocyst stage compared to the cleavage stage in frozen cycles to select a better method of assisted reproduction.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 194 women who referred to the Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Yazd, Iran, between April 2019 and December 2020. They had a frozen ET as either cleavage or blastocyst (n = 97/each group). The study compared the pregnancy and fetal outcomes in the 2 groups of ET at the cleavage and blastocyst stages.
Results: The results showed that the blastocyst stage group had higher levels of anti-Mullerian hormone, ovule number, 2 pronuclear number, and embryo number than the cleavage stage group. The frequency of chemical pregnancies was 52.6% and 36.1% in blastocyst and cleavage group respectively (p = 0.02). Also, the frequency of clinical pregnancies was 41.2% and 22.7% in blastocyst and cleavage group respectively (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was observed between 2 groups in abortion, preterm delivery, multiple births, preterm premature rupture of membranes, gestational diabetes and preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, neonatal hospitalization in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, and fetal abnormalities (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: The results showed that transmission in the blastocyst stage compared to the cleavage stage is associated with an increase in chemical and clinical pregnancy, while other pregnancy outcomes are the same in both groups.
Key words: Blastocyst, Ovum cleavage stage, Embryo transfer.
References
[2] Veleva Z, Orava M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Factors affecting the outcome of frozenthawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 2425- 2431.
[3] Zaat T, Zagers M, Mol F, Goddijn M, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 2: CD011184.
[4] Eftekhar M, Rahmani E, Pourmasumi S. Evaluation of clinical factors influencing pregnancy rate in frozen embryo transfer. Iran J Reprod Med 2014; 12: 513-518.
[5] Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 156-162.
[6] Nananbakhsh F, Ilkhanizadeh B, Moghadasian Niaki N, Oshnouei S, Deldar Y. [Comparing the outcome of fresh and frozen embryo transfer fertility in infertile women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection]. Urmia Med J 2016; 27: 402-410. (in Persian)
[7] Youngster M, Mor M, Kedem A, Gat I, Yerushalmi G, Gidoni Y, et al. Endometrial compaction is associated with increased clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates in unstimulated natural cycle frozen embryo transfers: A prospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022; 39: 1909-1916.
[8] Chen Y, Zhou J, Chen Y, Yang J, Hao Y, Feng T, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer and fresh embryo transfer in women of advanced maternal age: Single-center experience. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 6395.
[9] Chen Z-J, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. New Engl J Med 2016; 375: 523-533.
[10] Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 723- 730.
[11] Insogna IG, Lanes A, Lee MS, Ginsburg ES, Fox JH. Association of fresh embryo transfers compared with cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers with live birth rate among women undergoing assisted reproduction using freshly retrieved donor oocytes. JAMA 2021; 325: 156-163.
[12] Homer HA. The role of oocyte quality in explaining “Unexplained” infertility. Semin Reprod Med 2020; 38: 21-28.
[13] Aydos K, Aydos OS. Sperm selection procedures for optimizing the outcome of ICSI in patients with NOA. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 2687.
[14] Kop PA, Mochtar MH, O’Brien PA, Van der Veen F, van Wely M. Intrauterine insemination versus intracervical insemination in donor sperm treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 2018: CD000317.
[15] Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Retamar AMQ, Sedo CRA, Blake D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Ddatabase Syst Rev 2016; 6: CD002118.
[16] de Croo I, Colman R, de Sutter P, Tilleman K. Blastocyst transfer for all? Higher cumulative live birth chance in a blastocyst-stage transfer policy compared to a cleavagestage transfer policy. Facts Views Vis ObGyn 2019; 11: 169-176.
[17] Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: What are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril 2016; 106: 244-250.
[18] Glujovsky D, Retamar AMQ, Sedo CRA, Ciapponi A, Cornelisse S, Blake D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyststage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 5: CD002118.
[19] Janati S, Behmanesh MA, Pourmotahari F, Dehban F, Poormoosavi SM. [The outcomes in fresh and frozenthawed embryo transfer cycles in infertile women]. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2023; 26: 8-16. (in Persian)
[20] Blake D, Proctor M, Johnson N, Olive D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; 2: CD002118.
[21] Blake DA, Proctor M, Johnson NP. The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: A cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 795-807.
[22] Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. New Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1139-1146.
[23] Mangalraj AM, Muthukumar K, Aleyamma T, Kamath MS, George K. Blastocyst stage transfer vs cleavage stage embryo transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci 2009; 2: 23-26.
[24] Kontopoulos G, Simopoulou M, Zervomanolakis I, Prokopakis T, Dimitropoulos K, Dedoulis E, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in oocyte donation cycles. Medicina 2019; 55: 293.
[25] 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 cleavagestage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and metaanalysis. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 91-99.
[26] Li W, Xue X, Zhao W, Ren A, Zhuo W, Shi J. Blastocyst transfer is not associated with increased unfavorable obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Gynecol Endocrinol 2017; 33: 857-860.