Single Day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers

被引:55
作者
Guerif, F. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lemseffer, M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Bidault, R. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Gasnier, O. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Saussereau, M. H. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Cadoret, V. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Jamet, C. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Royere, D. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] CHRU Bretonneau, Serv Med & Biol Reprod, F-37000 Tours, France
[2] Univ Tours, CHRU, F-37041 Tours, France
[3] UMR Physiol Reprod & Comportements, F-37380 Nouzilly, France
关键词
blastocyst; cleavage-stage embryo; cryopreservation; cumulative delivery rate; single embryo transfer; IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION; PREGNANCY RATES; CULTURE; IMPLANTATION; SELECTION; CLEAVAGE; TIME; CRYOPRESERVATION; PARAMETERS; COUPLES;
D O I
10.1093/humrep/dep018
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 [妇产科学];
摘要
Whether extended culture allowing selection of embryos with high development potential has any advantage over cleavage-stage embryo transfer remains a matter of debate. Among the currently unsolved questions, the cumulative delivery rate resulting from fresh and frozen embryo transfers needs to be taken into account in both strategies. The aim of our study was, therefore, to compare the efficacy of single embryo transfer either on Day 2 or on Day 5/6 combining fresh and frozen embryo transfers. A prospective study including 478 couples assigned on a voluntary basis to undergo elective single embryo transfer (eSET, n = 243) on Day 2 or single blastocyst transfer (SBT, n = 235) on Day 5/6 was performed. The primary outcome measurement was the cumulative delivery rate including fresh and frozen-thawed cycles in both groups. The delivery rate per cycle following fresh embryo transfer was significantly higher in the SBT group compared with the eSET group (P < 0.01). Conversely, frozen embryo and/or blastocyst transfers tended to result in a higher number of deliveries in the eSET compared with the SBT group. Altogether, the cumulative delivery rate per couple, including fresh and frozen embryo transfers, was similar between the two groups (37.9% versus 34.2% in the SBT and eSET groups, respectively). The observed cumulative delivery rates in this study do not allow us to take a position in favor of SBT or eSET. An improvement in blastocyst cryopreservation may change this attitude.
引用
收藏
页码:1051 / 1058
页数:8
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]
Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE [J].
Andersen, A. Nyboe ;
Goossens, V. ;
Ferraretti, A. P. ;
Bhattacharya, S. ;
Felberbaum, R. ;
de Mouzon, J. ;
Nygren, K. G. .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2008, 23 (04) :756-771
[2]
Culture of preimplantation embryos: Facts and artifacts [J].
Bavister, BD .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE, 1995, 1 (02) :91-148
[3]
Factors relating to a successful cryopreserved blastocyst transfer program [J].
Behr, B ;
Gebhardt, L ;
Lyon, J ;
Milki, AA .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2002, 77 (04) :697-699
[4]
Preliminary clinical experience with human blastocyst development in vitro without co-culture [J].
Behr, B ;
Pool, TB ;
Milki, AA ;
Moore, D ;
Gebhardt, J ;
Dasig, D .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1999, 14 (02) :454-457
[5]
Single embryo transfer: a mini-review [J].
Bergh, C .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2005, 20 (02) :323-327
[6]
The couple's decision-making in IVF: one or two embryos at transfer? [J].
Blennborn, M ;
Nilsson, S ;
Hillervik, C ;
Hellberg, D .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2005, 20 (05) :1292-1297
[7]
HUMAN-GENE EXPRESSION 1ST OCCURS BETWEEN THE 4-CELL AND 8-CELL STAGES OF PREIMPLANTATION DEVELOPMENT [J].
BRAUDE, P ;
BOLTON, V ;
MOORE, S .
NATURE, 1988, 332 (6163) :459-461
[8]
Evaluation of the mechanism for higher pregnancy rates in donor oocyte recipients by comparison of fresh with frozen embryo transfer pregnancy rates in a shared oocyte programme [J].
Check, JH ;
OShaughnessy, A ;
Lurie, D ;
Fisher, C ;
Adelson, HG .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1995, 10 (11) :3022-3027
[9]
Elective single blastocyst transfer reduces twin rates without compromising pregnancy rates [J].
Criniti, A ;
Thyer, A ;
Chow, G ;
Lin, P ;
Klein, N ;
Soules, M .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2005, 84 (06) :1613-1619
[10]
Crosignani PG, 2000, HUM REPROD, V15, P1856