Cleavage-Stage Or Blastocyst Transfer: Does İt Affect Pregnancy And Live Birth Rate İn Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycle?

Year 2017, Volume: 14 Issue: 3, 118 - 121, 01.07.2017

Seyhan Sönmez Mustafa Öztürk Cem Korkmaz Ferhan Sönmez Barış Baykal Cihangir Mutlu Ercan Seyit Temel Ceyhan

Abstract

Aim: Despite the existence of conflicting data regarding success and safety, there has been an increasing trend to frozen embryo cycle and blastocyst transfer worldwide. The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical results and pregnancy outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfer with cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage.Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, we evaluated 102 frozen embryo transfer FET cycles of single IVF center between 2014 and 2017. A total of 52 frozen-thawed cleavage stage embryo transfer cycles C-FET were compared with 50 FET cycles with blastocyst B-FET .Results: There was no difference in age, infertility reason, type of preceding ovulation induction protocol, cumulative dose of gonadotropin, number of retrieved oocyte and mean number of transferred embryo between the C-FET group and B-FET group. Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were higher but not significant in B-FET group 50% and 22.5% than C-FET group 28% and 16.7% Conclusion: This study showed that, results of blastocyst transfer in frozen embryo transfer cycle were more favorable but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. A further large-scale prospective study is needed.

Keywords

Cryopreserved embryo, blastocyst-cleavage transfer, pregnancy outcome

Dondurulmuş Embriyo Siklusunda Embriyo Transfer Zamanlaması Gebelik Başarısını Etkiler Mi? Tek Merkez Deneyimi

Abstract

Amaç: Dondurulmuş çözülmüş embriyo ve blastokist transferinin güvenilirliği ve klinik başarısı ile ilgili çelişkili yayınlara rağmen, tüm dünyada dondurulmuş embriyo ve blastokist transferi yönünde bir eğilim mevcuttur. Bu çalışmanın amacı dondurulmuş embriyo siklusunda klivaj ve blastokist evresi embriyo transferlerinin klinik ve gebelik sonuçlarını karşılaştırmaktır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada, tek bir merkezde 2014 ile 2017 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirilen 102 dondurulmuş çözülmüş embriyo transfer DÇET siklusunun sonuçları incelendi ve bu dönemde yapılan 52 klivaj evresi dondurulmuş çözülmüş embriyo transfer K-DÇET siklusu ile 50 blastokist evresi dondurulmuş çözülmüş embriyo transfer B-DÇET siklusunun klinik ve canlı doğum sonuçları karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: K-DÇET ve B-DÇET gruplarındaki hastaların yaşı, infertilite nedenleri, önceden uygulanan ovulasyon indüksyon protokolleri, toplam gonadotropin dozu, toplanan oosit sayıları ve transfer edilen ortalama embriyo sayıları benzerdi. Klinik gebelik ve canlı doğum oranları istatistiksel anlamlı olmamakla birlikte B-DÇET grubunda %50 ve %22 , K-DÇET grubundan %28 ve %16.7 yüksekti.Sonuç: Dondurulmuş çözülmüş embriyo transfer siklusunda blastokist transferinin klinik sonuçları klivaj evresi embriyo transferinden daha iyi gözükmekle birlikte, her iki grup arasında klinik gebelik ve canlı doğum oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktur.

Keywords

dondurulmuş embriyo, blastokist-klivaj evresi transfer, gebelik sonuçları

References

• Trounson, A. and L. Mohr, Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature, 1983. 305(5936): p. 707-709.
• Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S., Obs- tetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vit- ro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertility and sterility, 2012. 98(2): p. 368-377. e9.
• Bhattacharya, S., Maternal and perinatal outcomes after fresh versus fro- zen embryo transfer—what is the risk-benefit ratio? Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(2): p. 241-243.
• Wennerholm UB, Henningsen AK, Romundstad LB, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Skjaerven R, et al., Perinatal outcomes of children born after fro- zen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod., 2013. 28(9): p. 2545-2553.
• Liebermann J, Dietl J, Vanderzwalmen P, Tucker MJ. Recent develop- ments in human oocyte, embryo and blastocyst vitrification: where are we now? Reprod Biomed Online., 2003. 7(6): p. 623-633.
• Prevention., C.f.D.C.a., 2012 Assisted Reproductive Technology Suc- cess Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Atlanta:. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014., 2014.
• Glujovsky, D. and C. Farquhar, Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(2): p. 244-250.
• Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medici- ne,the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. . Fer- til Steril 2013. 99: p. 667-72.
• Han AR, Park CW, Lee HS, Yang KM, Song IO, Koong MK. Blastocyst transfer in frozen-thawed cycles. Clin Exp Reprod Med., 2012. 39(3): p. 114-117.
• Chen H, Lv JQ, Wu XM, Xiao Y, Xi HT, Zhu CF, Huang JY, et al., Blas- tocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryo transfer in the first frozen cycles of OHSS-risk patients who deferred from fresh embryo transfer. Gynecol Endocrinol., 2015. 31(9): p. 698-701.
• Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A, Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod , 2011: p. der106.
• Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Bosdou JK, Tarlatzis BC, Progesterone elevation and probability of pregnancy after IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 60 000 cycles. Hum Reprod Update., 2013: 19(5):433-57
• Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N, Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004– 2013. Reprod Biol Endocrinol., 2017. 15(1): p. 6.
• Noyes N, Reh A, McCaffrey C, Tan O, Krey L., Impact of developmen- tal stage at cryopreservation and transfer on clinical outcome of frozen embryo cycles. Reprod Biomed Online., 2009. 19: p. 9-15.
• Jones GM, Trounson AO, Lolatgis N, Wood C, Factors affecting the suc- cess of human blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril, 1998. 70(6): p. 1022-1029.
• Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Ste- irteghem A, Devroey P., In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med., 2006. 354(11): p. 1139-1146.
• Anderson, A.R., M.L. Weikert, and J.L. Crain, Determining the most optimal stage for embryo cryopreservation. Reproductive biomedicine online, 2004. 8(2): p. 207-211.
• Shebl O, Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Sir A, Tews G, Cryopreserved blas- tocysts have a lower implantation but an equal live birth rate as compa- red to fresh blastocysts of the same quality–a case–control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009. 88(8): p. 944-947.
• Kattera, S., P. Shrivastav, I. Craft, Comparison of pregnancy outcome of pronuclear-and multicellular-stage frozen–thawed embryo transfers. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 1999. 16(7): p. 358-362.
• Ata, B, E. Seli, A universal freeze all strategy: why it is not warranted. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol., 2017.
• Roque M, Valle M, Guimarães F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all cycle for all normal responders? J Assist Reprod Genet., 2016: p. 1-7.