Yonsei Med J.  2014 May;55(3):815-825. 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.3.815.

Blastocyst Transfer Ameliorates Live Birth Rate Compared with Cleavage-Stage Embryos Transfer in Fresh In Vitro Fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Cycles: Reviews and Meta-Analysis

• Wang SS
• Sun HX

• KMID: 2068696
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2014.55.3.815

Abstract

PURPOSE
Blastocyst transfer has been recommended to raise the implantation rate without affecting the pregnancy rate. The objective of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate whether the live birth rate and other pregnancy outcomes can be improved by blastocyst transfer compared with cleavage-stage embryos transfer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for papers published between March 2004 and March 2013. An extensive range of the electronic databases yielded initially 317 studies from which seven trials met the inclusion criteria for further analysis. Our outcome measures were the live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, first trimester miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy rate. Fixed effects models were chosen to calculate the odds ratio (OR).
RESULTS
Seven trials (n=1446 cases) were finally analyzed. Compared with cleavage-stage embryos transfer, the blastocyst transfer was statistically significantly associated with an increase in clinical pregnancy rate [OR 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-1.78], implantation rate (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.74) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 2.15; 95% CI, 1.57-2.94), and also a reduction in the probability of first trimester miscarriage rate (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87). The improvement in the live birth rate was also observed (OR 1.77; 95% CI, 1.32-2.37). Moreover, there was no evidence of difference in multiple pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy rates.
CONCLUSION
The available evidences suggest that live birth and other pregnancy outcomes after fresh in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) are significantly improved following blastocyst transfer as compared to cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

Keyword

Blastocyst; cleavage stage; embryo transfer; live birth rate; meta-analysis

MeSH Terms

Birth Rate
*Embryo Transfer
Female
Fertilization in Vitro/*methods
Humans
Pregnancy
*Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the systematic review and meta-analysis.

• 

  Fig. 2 Forest plot of comparison: live birth rate per couple. The horizontal bars extending to the right and left of the black circles represent the widths of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The variation in the CIs is a function of different sizes of the samples. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

• 

  Fig. 3 Forest plot of comparison: clinical pregnancy rate per couple. The horizontal bars extending to the right and left of the black circles represent the widths of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The variation in the CIs is a function of different sizes of the samples. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

• 

  Fig. 4 Forest plot of comparison: implantation rate per embryo transfer. The horizontal bars extending to the right and left of the black circles represent the widths of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The variation in the CIs is a function of different sizes of the samples. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

• 

  Fig. 5 Forest plot of comparison: ongoing pregnancy rate per couple. The horizontal bars extending to the right and left of the black circles represent the widths of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The variation in the CIs is a function of different sizes of the samples. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

• 

  Fig. 6 Forest plot of comparison: multiple pregnancy rate per clinical pregnancy. The horizontal bars extending to the right and left of the black circles represent the widths of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The variation in the CIs is a function of different sizes of the samples. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

• 

  Fig. 7 Forest plot of comparison: first trimester miscarriage rate. The horizontal bars extending to the right and left of the black circles represent the widths of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The variation in the CIs is a function of different sizes of the samples. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

• 

  Fig. 8 Forest plot of comparison: ectopic pregnancy rate. The horizontal bars extending to the right and left of the black circles represent the widths of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The variation in the CIs is a function of different sizes of the samples. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Reference

1. Mangalraj AM, Muthukumar K, Aleyamma T, Kamath MS, George K. Blastocyst stage transfer vs cleavage stage embryo transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2009; 2:23–26.

2. Karaki RZ, Samarraie SS, Younis NA, Lahloub TM, Ibrahim MH. Blastocyst culture and transfer: a step toward improved in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77:114–118.

3. Edwards RG, Beard HK. Blastocyst stage transfer: pitfalls and benefits. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14:1–4.

4. Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update. 1997; 3:367–382.

5. Pool TB, Atiee SR, Martin JE. Oocyte and embryo culture: basic concepts and recent advances. Infert Reprod Med Clinics N Amer. 1998; 9:181–203.

6. Tsirigotis M. Blastocyst stage transfer: pitfalls and benefits. Too soon to abandon current practice? Hum Reprod. 1998; 13:3285–3289.

7. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. No longer neglected: the human blastocyst. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13:3289–3292.

8. Gardner DK, Balaban B. Choosing between day 3 and day 5 embryo transfers. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49:85–92.

9. Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; CD002118.

10. Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23:91–99.

11. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 7:CD002118.

12. Hreinsson J, Rosenlund B, Fridström M, Ek I, Levkov L, Sjöblom P, et al. Embryo transfer is equally effective at cleavage stage and blastocyst stage: a randomized prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004; 117:194–200.

13. Kolibianakis EM, Zikopoulos K, Verpoest W, Camus M, Joris H, Van Steirteghem AC, et al. Should we advise patients undergoing IVF to start a cycle leading to a day 3 or a day 5 transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19:2550–2554.

14. 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; 20:3198–3203.

15. 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; 354:1139–1146.

16. Fisch JD, Adamowicz M, Hackworth J, Ginsburg M, Keskintepe L, Sher G. Single embryo transfer (SET) day 3 vs. day 5 based on graduated embryo score (GES) and soluble human leukocyte antigen-g (sHLA-G): preliminary results of a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2007; 88:Suppl 1. S332–S333.

17. Brugnon F, Bouraoui Z, Ouchchane L, Gremeau AS, Peikrishvili R, Pouly JL, et al. Cumulative pregnancy rates after single cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: A randomized and prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25:Suppl 1. i60–i61. doi: 10.1093/humrep/de.25.s1.41.

18. Elgindy EA, Abou-Setta AM, Mostafa MI. Blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryo transfer in women with high oestradiol concentrations: randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23:789–798.

19. Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril. 2010; 94:1680–1683.

20. Pantos K, Stavrou D, Pichos I, Grammatis M, Pappas K, Dafereras A, et al. The successful use of hatched blastocysts in assisted reproductive technology. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 28:113–117.

21. Palmer GA, Traeger-Synodinos J, Davies S, Tzetis M, Vrettou C, Mastrominas M, et al. Pregnancies following blastocyst stage transfer in PGD cycles at risk for beta-thalassaemic haemoglobinopathies. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:25–31.

22. 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; 79:228–230.

23. Paulson RJ. Hormonal induction of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96:530–535.

24. Bourgain C, Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2003; 9:515–522.

25. Fleming R, Jenkins J. The source and implications of progesterone rise during the follicular phase of assisted reproduction cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 21:446–449.

26. Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Pozzobon C, Tank P, Tournaye H, Bourgain C, et al. Progesterone rise on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin administration impairs pregnancy outcome in day 3 single-embryo transfer, while has no effect on day 5 single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2009; 91:949–952.

27. Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Fatemi HM, Tournaye H, Verheyen G, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Early pregnancy loss is significantly higher after day 3 single embryo transfer than after day 5 single blastocyst transfer in GnRH antagonist stimulated IVF cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 12:60–65.

28. Tadin I, Roje D, Banovic I, Karelovic D, Mimica M. Fetal reduction in multifetal pregnancy--ethical dilemmas. Yonsei Med J. 2002; 43:252–258.

29. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2008; 90:5 Suppl. S174–S177.

30. 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; 15:1781–1786.

31. 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; 19:2849–2858.

32. Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, Calderon G, Cohen J, Munné S. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16:1954–1958.

33. Strandell A, Thorburn J, Hamberger L. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1999; 71:282–286.

34. Fanchin R, Ayoubi JM, Righini C, Olivennes F, Schönauer LM, Frydman R. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16:1115–1119.

35. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK. Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril. 2001; 76:863–870.

36. 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; 69:84–88.

37. Ménézo YJ, Hamamah S, Hazout A, Dale B. Time to switch from co-culture to sequential defined media for transfer at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13:2043–2044.

38. Balaban B, Urman B. Comparison of two sequential media for culturing cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts: embryo characteristics and clinical outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 10:485–491.

39. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meerssche M, Ryckaert G, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14:2345–2349.

40. 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; 15:1947–1952.

41. Edwards RG, Beard HK. Is the success of human IVF more a matter of genetics and evolution than growing blastocysts? Hum Reprod. 1999; 14:1–4.

42. Scholtes MC, Zeilmaker GH. Blastocyst transfer in day-5 embryo transfer depends primarily on the number of oocytes retrieved and not on age. Fertil Steril. 1998; 69:78–83.