| Literature DB >> 32294624 |
Lanlan Fang1, Jingyan He1, Yang Yan1, Qiongqiong Jia1, Yiping Yu1, Ruizhe Zhang1, Jung-Chien Cheng1, Ying-Pu Sun1.
Abstract
Older patients or patients with a reduced ovarian response have a low number of embryos, which limits the opportunity for embryo selection. However, for young patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer (ET), it remains unclear whether embryo stage affects pregnancy outcomes. In the present study, a total of 2952 patients undergoing their first frozen-thawed ET were divided into two groups: patients who had experienced one failed fresh ET (Group A) and patients who had not received fresh ET because of the high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Group B). Our results show that Group B patients had a significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) than Group A patients. However, Group A patients who underwent blastocyst-stage frozen-thawed ET had a significantly higher CPR and LBR and a lower ectopic pregnancy rate (ePR) than did those who underwent cleavage-stage frozen-thawed ET. In Group B, CPR, ePR, LBR and spontaneous abortion rate (sAR) were similar with blastocyst-stage and cleavage-stage frozen-thawed ET. These results suggest that blastocyst-stage frozen-thawed ET is more appropriate for young patients who had previously undergone one failed fresh ET cycle.Entities:
Keywords: blastocyst-stage embryo; cleavage-stage embryo; fertilization in vitro; frozen-thawed embryo transfer
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32294624 PMCID: PMC7202481 DOI: 10.18632/aging.103055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
General characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of Group A (had experienced one failed fresh ET) and Group B (had not received fresh ET because of the high risk of OHSS).
| Patient number | 1806 | 1146 | |
| Female age (y) | 29.54±2.86 | 29.41±2.96 | 0.42 |
| Duration of infertility (y) | 3.91±2.48 | 4.00±2.49 | 0.34 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.46±1.85 | 21.47±1.89 | 0.42 |
| No. of AFC | 13.58±5.48 | 17.18±5.78 | <0.001 |
| Endometrial preparation protocol | |||
| Natural cycle (%) | 40.76 (736/1806) | 25.74 (295/1146) | <0.001 |
| Artificial cycle (%) | 59.25 (1070/1806) | 74.26 (851/1146) | |
| Endometrial thickness on ET day (mm) | 10.49±1.96 | 10.36±1.94 | 0.76 |
| Type of embryos | |||
| Cleavage-stage embryo (%) | 83.67 (1511/1806) | 72.69 (833/1146) | <0.001 |
| Blastocyst-stage embryo (%) | 16.33 (295/1806) | 27.31 (313/1146) | |
| Blastomere survival rate (%) | 95.14 (24637/25895) | 93.72 (12255/13076) | <0.001 |
| No. of transferred embryos | 2.24±0.67 | 1.92±0.38 | <0.001 |
| CPR (%) | 45.46 (821/1806) | 49.21 (564/1146) | 0.046 |
| ePR (%) | 4.14 (34/821) | 2.30 (13/564) | 0.064 |
| sAR (%) | 13.64 (112/821) | 13.83 (78/564) | 0.92 |
| LBR (%) | 37.38 (675/1806) | 41.27 (473/1146) | 0.034 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or percentage (number).
CPR: clinical pregnancy rate; ePR: ectopic pregnancy rate; sAR: spontaneous abortion rate; LBR: live birth rate.
General characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of Group A (had experienced one failed fresh ET) and Group B (had not received fresh ET because of the high risk of OHSS) with different transferred embryo-stages.
| Patient number | 1511 | 295 | 833 | 313 | ||
| Female age (y) | 29.57±2.86 | 29.39±2.89 | 0.45 | 29.42±2.93 | 29.39±3.00 | 0.52 |
| Duration of infertility (y) | 3.91±2.47 | 3.93±2.54 | 0.91 | 4.03±2.54 | 3.89±2.37 | 0.25 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.47±1.86 | 21.39±1.86 | 0.82 | 21.47±1.89 | 21.48±1.86 | 0.58 |
| No. of AFC | 13.45±5.47 | 14.22±5.52 | 0.48 | 16.88±5.79 | 17.96±5.70 | 0.86 |
| Endometrial preparation protocol | ||||||
| Natural cycle (%) | 40.37 (610/1511) | 42.71 (126/295) | 0.45 | 25.93 (216/833) | 25.24 (79/313) | 0.81 |
| Artificial cycle (%) | 59.63 (901/1511) | 57.29 (169/295) | 0.45 | 74.07 (617/833) | 74.76 (234/313) | 0.81 |
| Endometrial thickness on ET day (mm) | 10.52±1.98 | 10.34±1.89 | 0.35 | 10.42±1.95 | 10.18±1.92 | 0.29 |
| No. of transferred embryos | 2.34±0.65 | 1.69±0.46 | <0.001 | 2.05±0.26 | 1.62±0.49 | <0.001 |
| CPR (%) | 43.28 (654/1511) | 56.61 (167/295) | <0.001 | 48.74 (406/833) | 50.48 (158/313) | 0.60 |
| ePR (%) | 4.89 (32/654) | 1.20 (2/167) | 0.032 | 2.21 (9/406) | 2.53 (4/158) | 0.82 |
| sAR (%) | 12.54 (82/654) | 17.96 (30/167) | 0.068 | 13.79 (56/406) | 13.92 (22/158) | 0.97 |
| LBR (%) | 35.74 (540/1511) | 45.76 (135/295) | 0.001 | 40.93 (341/833) | 42.17 (132/313) | 0.71 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or percentage (number).
Comparison of CPR and LBR in Group A (had experienced one failed fresh ET) and Group B (had not received fresh ET because of the high risk of OHSS) with different transferred embryo-stages and endometrial preparation protocols.
| A | Natural cycle | 45.57 (278/610) | 58.73 (74/126) | 0.007 | 38.69 (236/610) | 49.20 (62/126) | 0.029 | |
| Artificial cycle | 41.73 (376/901) | 55.03 (93/169) | 0.001 | 33.74 (304/901) | 43.20 (73/169) | 0.018 | ||
| 0.14 | 0.52 | 0.049 | 0.31 | |||||
| B | Natural cycle | 51.39 (111/216) | 56.96 (45/79) | 0.40 | 44.44 (96/216) | 50.63 (40/79) | 0.35 | |
| Artificial cycle | 47.81 (295/617) | 48.29 (113/234) | 0.90 | 39.71 (245/617) | 39.32 (92/234) | 0.92 | ||
| 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.078 | |||||
Data are presented as percentage (number).
Figure 1Flow chart of patient selection.