Jigal Haas1, Jim Meriano2, Rawad Bassil2, Eran Barzilay3, Eran Zilberberg2, Robert F Casper2. 1. TRIO Fertility Partners, Division of Reproductive Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel- Hashomer, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Electronic address: jigalh@hotmail.com. 2. TRIO Fertility Partners, Division of Reproductive Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. TRIO Fertility Partners, Division of Reproductive Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel- Hashomer, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the ongoing pregnancy rate between morulae and cavitating morulae (CAVM) transferred on day 5, to describe and compare the blastulation rate between day 5 morulae and CAVM, and to describe the pregnancy rate of these slow-developing blastocysts during a frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary care medical center. PATIENT(S): Delayed-development embryos: 3,321 cycles that included 10,304 embryos on day 5 that were cultured until day 6. INTERVENTION(S): Development of morula and CAVM to the blastocyst stage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Blastulation rate. RESULT(S): The fresh embryo transfers comprised 186 patients with 82 embryos at the morula stage and 104 embryos at the CAVM stage. The pregnancy rate (15.8% vs. 21.1%) and the ongoing pregnancy rate (15.8% vs. 17.3%) were comparable between the groups. The study group included 10,304 day-5 delayed embryos: 5,395 morulae and 4,909 CAVM on day 5. The blastulation rate was statistically significantly higher in the CAVM group compared with the morula group (39.2% vs. 20.4%). We included 201 FET cycles: 77 warmed blastocysts that developed from a morula on day 5 and 124 warmed blastocysts that developed from CAVM on day 5. The clinical pregnancy rate was comparable between the two groups per embryo transfer (21.3% vs. 24.7%). CONCLUSION(S): Transferring of fresh, slow-developing embryos seems to improve the cycle outcomes compared with culturing for another day and then vitrifying and thawing later.
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the ongoing pregnancy rate between morulae and cavitating morulae (CAVM) transferred on day 5, to describe and compare the blastulation rate between day 5 morulae and CAVM, and to describe the pregnancy rate of these slow-developing blastocysts during a frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary care medical center. PATIENT(S): Delayed-development embryos: 3,321 cycles that included 10,304 embryos on day 5 that were cultured until day 6. INTERVENTION(S): Development of morula and CAVM to the blastocyst stage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Blastulation rate. RESULT(S): The fresh embryo transfers comprised 186 patients with 82 embryos at the morula stage and 104 embryos at the CAVM stage. The pregnancy rate (15.8% vs. 21.1%) and the ongoing pregnancy rate (15.8% vs. 17.3%) were comparable between the groups. The study group included 10,304 day-5 delayed embryos: 5,395 morulae and 4,909 CAVM on day 5. The blastulation rate was statistically significantly higher in the CAVM group compared with the morula group (39.2% vs. 20.4%). We included 201 FET cycles: 77 warmed blastocysts that developed from a morula on day 5 and 124 warmed blastocysts that developed from CAVM on day 5. The clinical pregnancy rate was comparable between the two groups per embryo transfer (21.3% vs. 24.7%). CONCLUSION(S): Transferring of fresh, slow-developing embryos seems to improve the cycle outcomes compared with culturing for another day and then vitrifying and thawing later.
Authors: E B Nguyen; E A Jacobs; K M Summers; A E Sparks; B J Van Voorhis; V E Klenov; E H Duran Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: Angelika V Timofeeva; Ivan S Fedorov; Maria A Shamina; Vitaliy V Chagovets; Nataliya P Makarova; Elena A Kalinina; Tatiana A Nazarenko; Gennady T Sukhikh Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2021-12-01