PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of elective single morula embryo transfer (eSMET) versus elective single blastocyst embryo transfer (eSBET) in selected patients. METHODS: This study was a retrospective study which analyzed for 271 cycles in women under 37 years of age who are undergoing their first or second trial of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) from January 2008 to December 2009. The eSMET was performed on day 4 (n = 130) and the eSBET was conducted on day 5 (n = 141). RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rate (51.5% vs. 51.8%, p = 0.97), implantation rate (52.3% vs. 52.5%, p = 0.98), and live birth rate (39.2% vs. 44.7%, p = 0.36) were similar in the eSMET and eSBET groups, respectively. The miscarriage rate of the eSMET group (23.9%) was slightly higher than that of the eSBET group (13.7%) (p = 0.12), without reaching statistical significance. There was only one case of monozygotic twin pregnancy in each group. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of day 4 eSMET were comparable to those of day 5 eSBET. Therefore, day 4 eSMET is a viable option or an alternative to day 5 eSBET, with no difference in success rates.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of elective single morula embryo transfer (eSMET) versus elective single blastocyst embryo transfer (eSBET) in selected patients. METHODS: This study was a retrospective study which analyzed for 271 cycles in women under 37 years of age who are undergoing their first or second trial of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) from January 2008 to December 2009. The eSMET was performed on day 4 (n = 130) and the eSBET was conducted on day 5 (n = 141). RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rate (51.5% vs. 51.8%, p = 0.97), implantation rate (52.3% vs. 52.5%, p = 0.98), and live birth rate (39.2% vs. 44.7%, p = 0.36) were similar in the eSMET and eSBET groups, respectively. The miscarriage rate of the eSMET group (23.9%) was slightly higher than that of the eSBET group (13.7%) (p = 0.12), without reaching statistical significance. There was only one case of monozygotic twin pregnancy in each group. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of day 4 eSMET were comparable to those of day 5 eSBET. Therefore, day 4 eSMET is a viable option or an alternative to day 5 eSBET, with no difference in success rates.
Authors: Nicolas H Zech; Bernard Lejeune; Francoise Puissant; Sabine Vanderzwalmen; Herbert Zech; Pierre Vanderzwalmen Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Michael Henman; James W Catt; Tina Wood; Mark C Bowman; Kylie A de Boer; Robert P S Jansen Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Ann Thurin; Jon Hausken; Torbjörn Hillensjö; Barbara Jablonowska; Anja Pinborg; Annika Strandell; Christina Bergh Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D J McLernon; K Harrild; C Bergh; M J Davies; D de Neubourg; J C M Dumoulin; J Gerris; J A M Kremer; H Martikainen; B W Mol; R J Norman; A Thurin-Kjellberg; A Tiitinen; A P A van Montfoort; A M van Peperstraten; E Van Royen; S Bhattacharya Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-12-21
Authors: M Simopoulou; K Sfakianoudis; P Tsioulou; A Rapani; E Maziotis; P Giannelou; S Grigoriadis; A Pantou; K Nikolettos; N Vlahos; K Pantos; M Koutsilieris Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Sang Min Kang; Sang Won Lee; San Hyun Yoon; Joo Cheol Kim; Jin Ho Lim; Seong Goo Lee Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Yong Soo Hur; Eun Kyung Ryu; Seung Hyun Song; San Hyun Yoon; Kyung Sil Lim; Won Don Lee; Jin Ho Lim Journal: Clin Exp Reprod Med Date: 2016-06-23