Literature DB >> 29546361

Single embryo transfer by Day 3 time-lapse selection versus Day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

Lanlin Yang1,2, Sufen Cai1,3,2, Shuoping Zhang1,3,2, Xiangyi Kong1,2, Yifan Gu1,3,2, Changfu Lu1,3,2, Jing Dai1,2, Fei Gong1,3,2, Guangxiu Lu3,2, Ge Lin1,3,2.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Does single cleavage-stage (Day 3) embryo transfer using a time-lapse (TL) hierarchical classification model achieve comparable ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) to single blastocyst (Day 5) transfer by conventional morphological (CM) selection? SUMMARY ANSWER: Day 3 single embryo transfer (SET) with a hierarchical classification model had a significantly lower OPR compared with Day 5 SET with CM selection. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Cleavage-stage SET is an alternative to blastocyst SET. Time-lapse imaging assists better embryo selection, based on studies of pregnancy outcomes when adding time-lapse imaging to CM selection at the cleavage or blastocyst stage. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This single-centre, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority study included 600 women between October 2015 and April 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Eligible patients were Chinese females, aged ≤36 years, who were undergoing their first or second fresh IVF cycle using their own oocytes, and who had FSH levels ≤12 IU/mL on Day 3 of the cycle and 10 or more oocytes retrieved. Patients who had underlying uterine conditions, oocyte donation, recurrent pregnancy loss, abnormal oocytes or <6 normally fertilized embryos (2PN) were excluded from the study participation. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either the cleavage-stage SET with a time-lapse hierarchical classification model for selection (D3 + TL) or blastocyst SET with CM selection (D5 + CM). All normally fertilized zygotes were cultured in Primo Vision. The study was conducted at a tertiary IVF centre (CITIC-Xiangya) and OPR was the primary outcome. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 600 patients were randomized to the two groups, among which 585 (D3 + TL = 290, D5 + CM = 295) were included in the Modified-intention-to-treat (mITT) population and 517 (D3 + TL = 261, D5 + CM = 256) were included in the PP population. In the per protocol (PP) population, OPR was significantly lower in the D3 group (59.4%, 155/261) than in the D5 group (68.4%, 175/256) (difference: -9.0%, 95% CI: -17.1%, -0.7%, P = 0.03). Analysis in mITT population showed a marginally significant difference in the OPR between the D3 + TL and D5 + CM groups (56.6 versus 64.1%, difference: -7.5%, 95% CI: -15.4%, 0.4%, P = 0.06). The D3 + TL group resulted in a markedly lower implantation rate than the D5 + CM group (64.4 versus 77.0%; P = 0.002) in the PP analysis, however, the early miscarriage rate did not significantly differ between the two groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study lacked a direct comparison between time-lapse and CM selections at cleavage-stage SET and was statistically underpowered to detect non-inferiority. The subject's eligibility criteria favouring women with a good prognosis for IVF weakened the generalizability of the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The OPR from Day 3 cleavage-stage SET using hierarchical classification time-lapse selection was significantly lower compared with that from Day 5 blastocyst SET using conventional morphology, yet it appeared to be clinically acceptable in women underwent IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study is supported by grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals and the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University, China. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-ICR-15006600. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16 June 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 1 October 2015.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29546361     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  7 in total

1.  Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

Authors:  Sarah Armstrong; Priya Bhide; Vanessa Jordan; Allan Pacey; Jane Marjoribanks; Cindy Farquhar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-05-29

2.  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

Review 3.  Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Demián Glujovsky; Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar; Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo; Agustín Ciapponi; Simone Cornelisse; Deborah Blake
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-05-19

4.  Impact of the addition of Early Embryo Viability Assessment to morphological evaluation on the accuracy of embryo selection on day 3 or day 5: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Alberto Revelli; Stefano Canosa; Andrea Carosso; Claudia Filippini; Carlotta Paschero; Gianluca Gennarelli; Luisa Delle Piane; Chiara Benedetto
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 4.234

5.  Clinical outcomes for Day 3 double cleavage-stage embryo transfers versus Day 5 or 6 single blastocyst transfer in frozen-thawed cycles: a retrospective comparative analysis.

Authors:  Jinpeng Rao; Feng Qiu; Shen Tian; Ya Yu; Ying Zhang; Zheng Gu; Yiting Cai; Fan Jin; Min Jin
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  A double-blind randomized controlled trial investigating a time-lapse algorithm for selecting Day 5 blastocysts for transfer.

Authors:  Aisling Ahlström; Kersti Lundin; Anna-Karin Lind; Kristina Gunnarsson; Göran Westlander; Hannah Park; Anna Thurin-Kjellberg; Steinunn A Thorsteinsdottir; Snorri Einarsson; Mari Åström; Kristina Löfdahl; Judith Menezes; Susanne Callender; Cina Nyberg; Jens Winerdal; Camilla Stenfelt; Brit-Randi Jonassen; Nan Oldereid; Lisa Nolte; Malin Sundler; Thorir Hardarson
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 6.353

7.  Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy for fresh donor oocyte cycles.

Authors:  Maria Facadio Antero; Bhuchitra Singh; Apoorva Pradhan; Megan Gornet; William G Kearns; Valerie Baker; Mindy S Christianson
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-12-09
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.