Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of pregnancy outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers: does day of embryo transfer really make a difference?

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if day of embryo transfer (ET) affects gestational age (GA) and/or birth weight (BW) at a single university fertility center that primarily performs day 5/6 ET.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of 2392 singleton live births resulting from IVF/ICSI at a single large university fertility center from 2003 to 2012. Patients were stratified by day 3 or day 5/6 ET. Outcome variables included patient age, gravidity, prior miscarriages, prior assisted reproduction technology cycles, number of embryos transferred, number of single ET, infertility diagnosis, neonatal sex, GA at birth, and BW. Subanalyses were performed on subgroups of preterm infants. A comparison was made between the study data and the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART) published data.

Results

There was no difference in GA at birth (39 ± 2.1 weeks for day 3 ET, 39 ± 1.9 weeks for day 5/6 ET) or BW between ET groups (3308 ± 568 g for day 3 ET, 3268 ± 543 g for day 5/6 ET). There was also no difference in the number of preterm deliveries (8.5 % for day 3 ET vs. 10.8 % for day 5/6 ET). The day 5/6 ET study data had significantly fewer pre-term deliveries than the SART day 5/6 ET data.

Conclusion

In contrast to published SART data, GA and BW were not influenced by day of ET. Data may be more uniform at a single institution. Day 5/6 ET continues to offer improved pregnancy rates without compromising birth outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blake DA, Farquhau CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4, Art. No.: CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub3.

  2. Croxatto HB, Ortiz ME, Diaz S, et al. Studies on the duration of egg transport by the human oviduct. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;132:629–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bavister BD. Culture of preimplantation embryos: facts and artifacts. Hum Reprod Update. 1995;1:91–148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gardner DK, Lane M, Calderon I, Leeton J. Environment of the pre-implantation human embryo in vivo: metabolite analysis of oviduct and uterine fluids and metabolism of cumulus cells. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:349–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardner DK, Vella P, Lane M, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:84–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grifo JA, Flisser E, Adler A, McCaffrey C, Krey LC, Licciardi F, et al. Programmatic implementation of blastocyst transfer in a university-based in vitro fertilization clinic: maximizing pregnancy rates and minimizing triplet rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:294–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Bardach A, Farquhar C. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7, Art. No.:CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4.

  8. Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, Glassner M, Opsahl M, Tan SL, et al. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related with the number of embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24:614–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(2):382–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advance maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Human Reprod. 2004;19:2849–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Adler A, Lee HL, McCulloh DH, Ampeloquio E, Clarke-Williams M, Hodes-Wertz B, et al. Blasotcyst culture selects for euploid embryos: comparison of blastomere biopsy and trophectoderm biopsy. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;28(4):485–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(6):1695–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalra SK, Ratcliffe SJ, Barnhart KT, Coutifaris C. Extended embryo culture and an increased risk of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:69–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pinborg A, Lidegaard O, la Cour Freiesleben N, Andersen AN. Consequences of vanishing twins in IVF/ICSI pregnancies. Human Reprod. 2005;20(10):2821–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dickey RP, Taylor SN, Lu PY, Sartor BM, Storment JM, Rye PH, et al. Spontaneous reduction of multiple pregnancy: incidence and effect on outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Criniti A, Thyer A, Chow G, Lin P, Klein N, Soules M. Elective single blastocyst transfer reduces twin rates without compromising pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1613–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grifo JA, Hodes-Wertz B, Lee HL, Amperloquio E, Clarke-Williams M, Adler A. Single thawed euploid embryo transfer improves IVF pregnancy, miscarriage, and multiple gestation outcomes and has similar implantation rates as egg donation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(2):259–64.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munné S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1700–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scott RT, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:870–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:24.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Capalbo A, Wright G, Themaat L, Elliott T, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. Fish reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts reveals high accuracy of diagnosis and no sign of mosaicism or preferential allocation. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:S22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mottla GL, Adelman MR, Hall JL, Gindoff PR, Stillman RJ, Johnson KE. Liineage tracing demonstrates that blastomeres of early cleavage-stage human pre-embryos contribute to both trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:384–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16:590–600.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vanneste E, Voet T, le Caignec C, Ampe M, Konings P, Melotte C, et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med. 2009;15:577–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

All NYU Fertility Center physicians, embryologists, nurses, and support staff.

These data were presented at the 61st annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Reproductive Society, April 17–21, 2013, Indian Wells, CA.

Financial support

None

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University Fertility Center, New York University Langone Medical Center, 660 First Ave, 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Susan M. Maxwell, David H. McCulloh & James A. Grifo

  2. Genesis Fertility and Reproductive Medicine, 6010 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, NY, 11204, USA

    Katherine Melzer-Ross

Authors
  1. Susan M. Maxwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Melzer-Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David H. McCulloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James A. Grifo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Maxwell.

Additional information

Capsule

This retrospective cohort study of singleton live births resulting from IVF/ICSI at the New York University Fertility Center found no difference in birth outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maxwell, S.M., Melzer-Ross, K., McCulloh, D.H. et al. A comparison of pregnancy outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers: does day of embryo transfer really make a difference?. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 249–254 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0404-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0404-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation