A comparison of cleavage-stage embryo transfer and blastocyst transfers in patients with low anti-Mullerian hormone levels

Abstract

Aim: Decreased ovarian reserve is a common problem that many women struggle with and seek help by assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Embryo transfer (ET) is an important step in ART that can be performed on cleavage-stage (day 2 or 3) or blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6). This study aims to investigate the effect of ET day on pregnancy results in patients with low levels of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH). Material and Method: This retrospective study enrolled 239 women with low AMH levels referred to the Bahçeşehir University, Göztepe Medikal Park Hospital In-vitro Fertilization (IVF) Clinic from May 2015 to April 2020. The patients were divided into two groups: blastocyst transfer group and cleavage-stage transfer group. Among the participants, blastocyst transfer was performed in 30 women and cleavage-stage ET on 209 women,respectively. Results: Among 239 participants, 30 (12.6%) were in the blastocyst group, and 209 (87.4%) were in the cleavage-stage group. There was no significant difference in the total number of retrieved oocytes between the two groups (p=0.1). The number of mature oocytes (MII) was significantly different between the two groups (p=0.006). Examining pregnancy results between the two groups showed no significant difference between positive and negative pregnancy tests (p=0.4). Even though a higher live birth rate for the blastocyst transfer group was observed with 15(50%), no significant difference was found between the number of live births and miscarriages in the two groups (p=0.1). Conclusion: The transfer day does not affect the pregnancy results in women with low AMH levels.

Keywords

• Anti-mullerian hormone,
• Assisted Reproductive Technique,
• Blastocyte,
• Cleavage,
• Embryo transfer

References

1. Lehmann P, Velez MP, Saumet J, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): a reliable biomarker of oocyte quality in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 493–8.
2. Papanikolaou EG, Fatemi H, Venetis C, et al. Monozygotic twinning is not increased after single blastocyst transfer compared with single cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 592-7.
3. Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren K-G, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 1680-3.
4. Kokkali G, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C, et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of β-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Human Reprod 2007; 22: 1443-9.
5. Mangalraj AM, Muthukumar K, Aleyamma T, Kamath MS, George K. Blastocyst stage transfer vs cleavage stage embryo transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci 2009; 2: 23-6.
6. Milki AA, Jun SH, Hinckley MD, Behr B, Giudice LC, Westphal LM. Incidence of monozygotic twinning with blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage-stage transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 503-6.
7. Barrenetxea G, de Larruzea AL, Ganzabal T, Jiménez R, Carbonero K, Mandiola M. Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril 2005; 83: 49-53.
8. Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2381-90.

9. Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman LR, Austin C, Goldberg J, Falcone T. Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12: 1-10.
10. Jones GM, Trounson AO, Gardner DK, Kausche A, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Evolution of a culture protocol for successful blastocyst development and pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 169-77.
11. Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, et al. Inhibin B and anti-mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients?. BJOG 2004; 111: 1248–53.
12. La Marca A, Ferraretti AP, Palermo R, et al. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol 2016; 32: 1–5.
13. Nikmard F, Aflatoonian B, Hosseini E, et al. A comparative study on the results of agonist and antagonist protocols based on serum AMH levels in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Int J Reprod Biomed 2016; 14: 769-76.
14. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 6: CD002118.
15. Ishihara O, Kuwahara A, Saitoh H. Frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer reduces ectopic pregnancy risk: an analysis of single embryo transfer cycles in Japan. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1966-9.
16. Martins W, Nastri C, Rienzi L, Van Der Poel S, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 2561-9.
17. Coskun S, Hollanders J, Al-Hassan S, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Mayman H, Jaroudi K. Day 5 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a controlled randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1947-52.
18. Levron J, Shulman A, Bider D, Seidman D, Levin T, Dor J. A prospective randomized study comparing day 3 with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 1300-1.
19. Lundqvist M, Rova K, Simberg N, Lundkvist Ö. Embryo transfer after 2 or 5 days of IVF culture: a retrospective comparison. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scand 2002; 81: 126-32.
20. Frattarelli JL, Leondires MP, McKeeby JL, Miller BT, Segars JH. Blastocyst transfer decreases multiple pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 228-30.
21. Van der Auwera I, Debrock S, Spiessens C, et al. A prospective randomized study: day 2 versus day 5 embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1507-12.
22. Wilson M, Hartke K, Kiehl M, Rodgers J, Brabec C, Lyles R. Integration of blastocyst transfer for all patients. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 693-6.
23. Schwärzler P, Zech H, Auer M, et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2097-102.
24. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 667-72.
25. Zeng M, Su S, Li L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod and Genet 2018; 35: 127-34.
26. Zhu Q, Zhu J, Wang Y, et al. Live birth rate and neonatal outcome following cleavage-stage embryo transfer versus blastocyst transfer using the freeze-all strategy. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38: 892-900.
27. Vajta G, Parmegiani L. Cleavage stage vs. blastocyst transfer: a more considerate analysis suggested. Hum Reprod 2020; 35: 2399-400.
28. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 2014; 20: 117-26.
29. Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson GD. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 128-33.
30. Maheshwari A, Kalampokas T, Davidson J, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 1615-21.
31. Karacan M, Ulug M, Arvas A, et al. Comparison of the transfer of equal numbers of blastocysts versus cleavage-stage embryos after repeated failure of in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 269-74.
32. Morin SJ, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Neal SA, Scott RT, Seli E. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patient <38 years old: A quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance Hum Reprod 2018; 33: 1489-98.