Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-19T13:09:10.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of transfer results of human embryos that were vitrified and thawed at the cleavage, morula and blastocyst stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2020

Cem Korkmaz Open the ORCID record for Cem Korkmaz [Opens in a new window] ,
Ümmü Gül Yıldız ,
Ulaş Fidan ,
Barış Baykal ,
Seyit Temel Ceyhan  and
Elif Ağaçayak
Cem Korkmaz*
Affiliation:
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Reproductive Medical Center, University of Health SciencesEtlik, Ankara, Turkey
Ümmü Gül Yıldız
Affiliation:
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Reproductive Medical Center, University of Health SciencesEtlik, Ankara, Turkey
Ulaş Fidan
Affiliation:
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Reproductive Medical Center, University of Health SciencesEtlik, Ankara, Turkey
Barış Baykal
Affiliation:
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Reproductive Medical Center, University of Health SciencesEtlik, Ankara, Turkey
Seyit Temel Ceyhan
Affiliation:
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Reproductive Medical Center, University of Health SciencesEtlik, Ankara, Turkey
Elif Ağaçayak
Affiliation:
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Reproductive Medical Center, University of Health SciencesEtlik, Ankara, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Cem Korkmaz. Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Reproductive Medical Center, University of Health Sciences06010Etlik, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: cem_korkmaz_tr@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of this study was to compare the rates of clinical pregnancy after the transfer of vitrified and thawed human embryos on days 3, 4 and 5 of embryonic development. In this retrospective study, the results of 148 embryo transfer cycles, using embryos frozen and thawed over the 3-year period between January 2016 and December 2018 at the Gülhane Training and Research Hospital Department of Gynecology and Obsterics Reproductive Medical Center of the University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey were examined. Following embryo transfer – including 29 dissolved embryos frozen on day 3, 80 frozen on day 4, and 39 frozen on day 5 – results were examined in terms of clinical pregnancy rates. In this study, across all three groups, no significant differences were observed in terms of patient age, the number of oocytes collected, infertility reasons, the number of embryos dissolved, transfer day, or the number of embryos transferred. According to the transfer day, the rates of clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy were significantly higher for embryos frozen on day 4 and transferred on day 5. Significantly higher rates of pregnancy and live birth were determined during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment with the freezing of human embryos on day 4 and the transfer of those embryos on day 5.

Keywords

Human embryoMorulaPregnancy rateTransfer dayVitrification
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 191 - 195
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Hasani, S, Ozmen, B, Koutlaki, N, Schoepper, B, Diedrich, K and Schultze-Mosgau, A (2007) Three years of routine vitrification of human zygotes: is it still fair to advocate slow-rate freezing? Reprod BioMed Online 14, 288–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alpha Scientists In Reproductive Medicine; ESHRE Special Interest Group Embryology (2011) Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod BioMed Online 22, 632–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, DA, Farquhar, CM, Johnson, N and Proctor, M (2007) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Oct 17, CD002118.Google Scholar
Brugnon, F, Bouraoui, Z, Ouchchane, L, Gremeau, A-S, Peikrishvili, R, Pouly, JL and Janny, L (2010) Cumulative pregnancy rates after single cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: a randomized and prospective study. Hum Reprod 25, i60–1.Google Scholar
Cobo, A, de los Santos, MJ, Castello, D, Gamiz, P, Campos, P and Remohi, J (2012). Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril 98, 1138–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, N, Blackmon, H, Szeptycki, J and Goldfarb, J (2007) Cryoloop vitrification of human day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: post- vitrification development, pregnancy outcomes and live births. Reprod BioMed Online 14, 208–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desai, NN, Goldberg, JM, Austin, C and Falcone, T (2013) The new Rapid-i carrier is an effective system for human embryo vitrification at both the blastocyst and cleavage stage. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 15, 11–41.Google Scholar
Eftekhar, M, Aflatoonian, A, Mohammadian, F and Tabibnejad, N (2012) Transfer of blastocysts derived from frozen–thawed cleavage stage embryos improved ongoing pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286, 511–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez-Shaw, S, Cercas, R, Braña, C, Villas, C and Pons, I (2015) Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 177–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghandy, N and Karimpur Malekshah, AA (2017) Which stage of mouse embryos is more appropriate for vitrification? Int J Fertil Steril 10, 357–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Glujovsky, D and Farquhar, C (2016) Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril 106, 244–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR and Blake, D (2016) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database 30, CD002118.Google Scholar
Han, MS, Niwa, K and Kasai, M (2003) Vitrification of rat embryos at various developmental stages. Theriogenology 59, 1851–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holschbach, V, Weigert, J, Dietrich, JE, Roesner, S, Montag, M, Strowitzki, T and Toth, B (2017) Pregnancy rates of day 4 and day 5 embryos after culture in an integrated time-lapse incubator. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 15, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, GM, Trounson, AO, Lolatgis, N and Wood, C (1998) Factors affecting the success of human blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 70, 1022–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joshi, BV, Banker, MR, Patel, PM and Shah, PB (2010) Transfer of human frozen–thawed embryos with further cleavage during culture increases pregnancy rates. J Hum Reprod Sci 3, 76–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaur, P, Swarankar, ML, Maheshwari, M and Acharya, V (2014) A comparative study between cleavage stage embryo transfer at day 3 and blastocyst stage transfer at day 5 in in-vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection on clinical pregnancy rates. J Hum Reprod Sci 7, 194–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, X, Yang, S, Gong, F, Lu, C, Zhang, S, Lu, G and Lin, G (2016) The relationship between cell number, division behavior and developmental potential of cleavage stage human embryos: a time-lapse study. PLoS One 11, e0153697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuwayama, M (2007). Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos: the Cryotop method. Theriogenology 67, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebermann, J and Tucker, MJ (2006) Comparison of vitrification and conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril 86, 20–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ling, XF, Zhang, JQ, Cao, SR, Chen, J, Peng, Y, Guo, X, Heng, BC, Tong, GQ and Wang, X (2009) Effect of cryotop vitrification on preimplantation developmental competence of murine morula and blastocyst stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 19, 708–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noyes, N, Reh, A, McCaffrey, C, Tan, O and Krey, L (2009) Impact of developmental stage at cryopreservation and transfer on clinical outcome of frozen embryo cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 19, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tao, J, Tamis, R and Fink, K (2001). Pregnancies achieved after transferring frozen morula/compact stage embryos. Fertil Steril 75, 629–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tao, J, Craig, RH, Johnson, M, Williams, B, Lewis, W, White, J and Buehler, N (2004) Cryopreservation of human embryos at the morula stage and outcomes after transfer. Fertil Steril 82, 108–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderzwalmen, P, Bertin, G, Debauche, Ch, Standaert, V, van Roosendaal, E, Vandervorst, M, Bollen, N, Zech, H, Mukaida, T, Takahashi, K and Schoysman, R (2002). Births after vitrification at morula and blastocyst stages: effect of artificial reduction of the blastocoelic cavity before vitrification. Hum Reprod 17, 744–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed