Literature DB >> 27357126

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

Demián Glujovsky1, Cindy Farquhar, Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar, Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo, Deborah Blake.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage stage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether blastocyst stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfers improve the live birth rate, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfers. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Bio extracts from inception to 4th April 2016. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos, and embryo freezing. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4031 couples or women).The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 1.82; 13 RCTs, 1630 women, I(2) = 45%, low quality evidence) following fresh transfer. This suggests that if 29% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 32% and 42% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates per couple of cumulative pregnancy following fresh and frozen-thawed transfer after one oocyte retrieval (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; 5 RCTs, 632 women, I(2) = 71%, very low quality evidence).The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the blastocyst transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.47; 27 RCTs, 4031 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 36% of women achieve clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 39% and 46% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; 19 RCTs, 3019 women, I(2) = 30%, low quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; 18 RCTs, 2917 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). These data are incomplete as under 70% of studies reported these outcomes.Embryo freezing rates were lower in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; 14 RCTs, 2292 women, I(2) = 84%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; 17 RCTs, 2577 women, I(2) = 36%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 2% and 4% will have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh blastocyst stage transfer.The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitation was serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation, and unclear or high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence for live birth and moderate quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst stage transfer is associated with higher rates than fresh cleavage stage transfer. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in cumulative pregnancy rates derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval, but the evidence for this outcome was very low quality. Thus, although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst transfer in fresh cycles, it remains unclear whether the day of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage to enable couples or women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27357126     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  123 in total

1.  RHOA activity in expanding blastocysts is essential to regulate HIPPO-YAP signaling and to maintain the trophectoderm-specific gene expression program in a ROCK/actin filament-independent manner.

Authors:  Yusuke Marikawa; Vernadeth B Alarcon
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.025

2.  Should the flexibility enabled by performing a day-4 embryo transfer remain as a valid option in the IVF laboratory? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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

3.  Reformatting the reproductive tract to accommodate the needs of human ARTs.

Authors:  David F Albertini
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Time to "cool off"? Examining indications for "elective deferred frozen embryo transfer".

Authors:  Alexander M Quaas; Karl R Hansen
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

Authors:  Cindy Farquhar; Jane Marjoribanks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-17

Review 6.  Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Authors:  Julie Brown; Salim Daya; Phill Matson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-12-14

7.  No advantage of fresh blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer in women under the age of 39: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti; Federico Cirillo; Antonella Smeraldi; Emanuela Morenghi; Giulia E G Mulazzani; Elena Albani
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  Next-generation sequencing analysis of each blastomere in good-quality embryos: insights into the origins and mechanisms of embryonic aneuploidy in cleavage-stage embryos.

Authors:  Qiuwen Shi; Ying Qiu; Changlong Xu; Hua Yang; Chunyuan Li; Nina Li; Yumei Gao; Caiyun Yu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Improvement of pregnancy outcome by extending embryo culture in IVF-ET during clinical application.

Authors:  Xiaopeng Zhao; Binbin Ma; Shaokang Mo; Lu Ma; Fei Chang; Liyuan Zhang; Fang Xu; Ling Wang
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 10.  Considerations Regarding Embryo Culture Conditions: From Media to Epigenetics.

Authors:  Mara Simopoulou; Konstantinos Sfakianoudis; Anna Rapani; Polina Giannelou; George Anifandis; Stamatis Bolaris; Agni Pantou; Maria Lambropoulou; Athanasios Pappas; Efthimios Deligeoroglou; Konstantinos Pantos; Michael Koutsilieris
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2018 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.