Abstract
Purpose
While extended culture has been considerably improved, some questions remain regarding the application of Single Blastocyst Transfer (SBT).
Methods
An observational cohort study was undertaken with 456 women under 36 years old and assigned to SBT on a voluntary basis. The main outcome was the cumulative delivery rate per couple according to the number of Top Quality Embryos (TQE) on day 2 (Group 1= ≥2 TQE, Group 2= 1 TQE and Group 3= 0 TQE).
Results
Rate of transfer and mean number of frozen blastocyts were higher in Group 1 compared to Group 3. As a consequence, the cumulative delivery rate per couple was higher in Group 1 (47.9%) compared to Group 3 (34.9%).
Conclusions
Single blastocyst transfer combining fresh and frozen cycles, might be a worthwhile strategy irrespective of embryo quality on day 2 providing good delivery rates while keeping the rate of multiple deliveries low.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Land JA, Evers JLH. Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:455–7.
Bergh C. Single embryo transfer: a mini-review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:323–7.
Marek D, Langley M, Gardner D, Phil D, Confer N, Doody KM, et al. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1035–40.
Gardner DK, Phil D, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.
Gardner DK, Phil D, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, et al. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:551–5.
Henman M, Catt JW, Wood T, Bowman MC, De Boer KA, Jansen R. Elective transfer of single fresh blastocysts and later transfer of cryostored blastocysts reduces the twin pregnancy rate and can improve the in vitro fertilization live birth rate in younger women. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1620–7.
Nilsson S, Waldenström U, Engström AB, Hellberg D. Promising results with 306 single blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1849–51.
Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1139–46.
Magli MC, Jones GM, Gras L, Gianaroli L, Korman I, Trounson AO. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1781–6.
Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, Michiels A, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2849–58.
Rijnders PM, Jansen CA. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2869–73.
Graham J, Han T, Porter R, Levy M, Stillman R, Tucker M. Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:495–7.
Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, et al. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1973–81.
Jones GM, Trounson AO, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Factors affecting the success of human blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:1022–9.
Tsirigotis M. Blastocyst stage transfer: pitfalls and benefits. Too soon to abandon current practice? Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3285–9.
Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Fisch JD, Dasig D, Behr B. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:126–9.
Racowsky C, Jackson KV, Cekleniak NA, Fox JH, Hornstein MD, Ginsburg ES. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:558–64.
Papanikolaou EG, D’haeseleer E, Verheyen G, Van de Velde H, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3198–203.
Balaban B, Urman B, Alatas C, Mercan R, Aksoy S, Isiklar A. Blastocyst-stage transfer of poor-quality cleavage-stage embryos results in higher implantation rates. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:514–8.
Guerif F, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Couet ML, Gervereau O, Lansac J, et al. Efficacy of blastocyst transfer after implantation failure. RBM Online. 2004;9:630–6.
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: infertility and genetics beyond 1999: the plenary proceedings of the 11th world congress on in vitro fertilization and human reproductive genetics. Pearl River: Parthenon; 1999. p. 378–88.
Guerif F, Cadoret V, Poindron J, Lansac J, Royere D. Overnight incubation improves selection of frozen-thawed blastocysts for transfer: preliminary study using supernumerary embryos. Theriogenology. 2003;60:1457–66.
Blennborn M, Nilsson S, Hillervik C, Hellberg D. The couple’s decision-making in IVF: one or two embryos at transfer? Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1292–7.
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.
Hartshorne GM, Lilford RJ. Different perspectives of patients and health care professionals on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1023–30.
Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Gebhardt J, Dasig D, Westphal LM, Behr B. Accuracy of day 3 criteria for selecting the best embryos. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:1191–5.
Van der Auwera I, Debrock S, Spiessens C, Afschrift H, Bakelants E, Meuleman C, et al. A prospective randomized study: day 2 versus day 5 embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1507–12.
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Stevens J, Hesla J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3434–40.
Karaki RZ, Samarraie SS, Younis NA, Lahloub TM, Ibrahim MH. Blastocyst culture and transfer: a step toward improved in vitro fertilzation outcome. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:114–8.
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.
Lonergan P, Rizos D, Guttierrez-Adan A, Fair T, Boland MP. Effect of culture environment on embryo quality and gene expression—experience from animal studies. RBM Online. 2003;7:657–63.
Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Moreira P, Bilbao A, Jimenez A, Perez-Crespo M, Ramirez MA, et al. Long-term effect of in vitro culture of mouse embryos with serum on mRNA expression of imprinting genes, development, and behavior. PNAS USA. 2004;101:5880–5.
Van Montfoort AP, Fiddelers AA, Land JA, Dirksen CD, Severens J, Geraedts JP, et al. eSET irrespective of the availability of a good-quality embryo in the first cycle only is not effective in reducing overall twin pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1669–74.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Capsule Couples with ≥2 TQE have increased rate of cumulative deliveries after single blastocyst transfer following fresh and frozen cycles compared to couples without TQE.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guerif, F., Lemseffer, M., Blanchard, M. et al. Top quality embryos at day 2: a prerequisite for single blastocyst transfer? An observational cohort study in women under 36. J Assist Reprod Genet 26, 443–449 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-009-9345-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-009-9345-3