Literature DB >> 28744794

Propensity score-matched study and meta-analysis of cumulative outcomes of day 2/3 versus day 5/6 embryo transfers.

Ye Yin1, Ge Chen1, Kezhen Li2, Qiuyue Liao1, Sijia Zhang1, Nieying Ma1, Jing Chen2, Yan Zhang2, Jihui Ai3.   

Abstract

The superiority of the cumulative outcomes of day 5/6 embryo transfer to those of day 2/3 embryo transfer in infertile couples has been debated. This retrospective study included data collected from 1051 patients from July 2011 to June 2014. Multiple maternal baseline covariates were subjected to propensity score matching analysis, and each day 5/6 group woman was matched to one day 2/3 group woman. A systematic meta-analysis was conducted to validate the results. After matching was completed, 217 patients on the day 2/3 group were matched with those on the day 5/6 group, and no significant differences in the baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The cumulative pregnancy rate (57.14% vs. 53.46%, OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79-1.70) and cumulative live birth rate (53.00% vs. 49.77%, OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.78-1.66) of day 5/6 embryo transfers were higher than those of day 2/3 embryo transfers, but this difference was not significant. The mean cycles per live birth and mean days per live birth in the day 5/6 group were significantly lower than those in the day 2/3 group. This study demonstrated that day 5/6 embryo transfer is a more cost-effective and time-efficient policy than day 2/3 embryo transfer to produce a live baby.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IVF; blastocyst; cumulative live birth rate; cumulative pregnancy rate; embryo transfer

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28744794     DOI: 10.1007/s11684-017-0535-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Med        ISSN: 2095-0217            Impact factor:   4.592


  25 in total

Review 1.  Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Faten F AbdelHafez; Nina Desai; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Tommaso Falcone; James Goldfarb
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2009-11-27       Impact factor: 3.828

2.  Cumulative success rates following mild IVF in unselected infertile patients: a 3-year, single-centre cohort study.

Authors:  Daniel Bodri; Satoshi Kawachiya; Michaël De Brucker; Herman Tournaye; Masae Kondo; Ryutaro Kato; Tsunekazu Matsumoto
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 3.828

3.  The artificial cycle method improves the pregnancy outcome in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Yu Zheng; Xiyuan Dong; Bo Huang; Hanwang Zhang; Jihui Ai
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 2.260

4.  Blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryo transfer in women with high oestradiol concentrations: randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Eman A Elgindy; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Magdy I Mostafa
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2011-09-10       Impact factor: 3.828

5.  Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results.

Authors:  S Fernández-Shaw; R Cercas; C Braña; C Villas; I Pons
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 6.  Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Demián Glujovsky; Debbie Blake; Cindy Farquhar; Ariel Bardach
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-07-11

Review 7.  Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kalliopi E Loutradi; Efstratios M Kolibianakis; Christos A Venetis; Evangelos G Papanikolaou; George Pados; Ioannis Bontis; Basil C Tarlatzis
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2007-11-05       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization.

Authors:  D K Gardner; W B Schoolcraft; L Wagley; T Schlenker; J Stevens; J Hesla
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  Is it time for a paradigm shift in understanding embryo selection?

Authors:  Norbert Gleicher; Vitaly A Kushnir; David H Barad
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2015-01-11       Impact factor: 5.211

10.  Elevated Progesterone Levels on the Day of Oocyte Maturation May Affect Top Quality Embryo IVF Cycles.

Authors:  Bo Huang; Xinling Ren; Li Wu; Lixia Zhu; Bei Xu; Yufeng Li; Jihui Ai; Lei Jin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of morphologically grade CC blastocysts: are they of clinical value?

Authors:  Menghui Li; Mingru Yin; Ling Wu; Zhiguang Yan; Qifeng Lyu; Zheng Yan; Bin Li
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  Blastocyst versus cleavage transfers: who benefits?

Authors:  Enver Kerem Dirican; Safak Olgan; Mehmet Sakinci; Mete Caglar
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 2.344

4.  No difference in cumulative live birth rates between cleavage versus blastocyst transfer in patients with four or fewer zygotes: results from a retrospective study.

Authors:  I De Croo; R Colman; P De Sutter; D Stoop; K Tilleman
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2022-07-22

5.  The Potential of Nanotechnology in Medically Assisted Reproduction.

Authors:  Mariana H Remião; Natalia V Segatto; Adriana Pohlmann; Silvia S Guterres; Fabiana K Seixas; Tiago Collares
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 5.810

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.