-
Human Reproduction Update Mar 2019Early reproductive failure is the most common complication of pregnancy with only 30% of conceptions reaching live birth. Establishing a successful pregnancy depends... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Early reproductive failure is the most common complication of pregnancy with only 30% of conceptions reaching live birth. Establishing a successful pregnancy depends upon implantation, a complex process involving interactions between the endometrium and the blastocyst. It is estimated that embryos account for one-third of implantation failures, while suboptimal endometrial receptivity and altered embryo-endometrial dialogue are responsible for the remaining two-thirds. Endometrial receptivity has been the focus of extensive research for over 80 years, leading to an indepth understanding of the processes associated with embryo-endometrial cross-talk and implantation. However, little progress has been achieved to translate this understanding into clinically meaningful prognostic tests and treatments for suboptimal endometrial receptivity.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence from observational studies supporting the use of endometrial receptivity markers as prognostic factors for pregnancy outcome in women wishing to conceive, in order to aid clinicians in choosing the most useful marker in clinical practice and for informing further research.
SEARCH METHODS
The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017077891). MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies published from inception until 26 February 2018. We included studies that measured potential markers of endometrial receptivity prior to pregnancy attempts and reported the subsequent pregnancy outcomes. We performed association and accuracy analyses using clinical pregnancy as an outcome to reflect the presence of receptive endometrium. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was employed to assess the quality of the included studies.
OUTCOMES
We included 163 studies (88 834 women) of moderate overall quality in the narrative synthesis, out of which 96 were included in the meta-analyses. Studies reported on various endometrial receptivity markers evaluated by ultrasound, endometrial biopsy, endometrial fluid aspirate and hysteroscopy in the context of natural conception, IUI and IVF. Associations were identified between clinical pregnancy and various endometrial receptivity markers (endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern, Doppler indices, endometrial wave-like activity and various molecules); however, their poor ability to predict clinical pregnancy prevents them from being used in clinical practice. Results from several modern molecular tests are promising and further data are awaited.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
The post-test probabilities from our analyses may be used in clinical practice to manage couples' expectations during fertility treatments (IUI and IVF). Conventionally, endometrial receptivity is seen as a dichotomous outcome (present or absent), but we propose that various levels of endometrial receptivity exist within the window of implantation. For instance, different transcriptomic signatures could represent varying levels of endometrial receptivity, which can be linked to different pregnancy outcomes. Many studies reported the means of a particular biomarker in those who achieved a pregnancy compared with those who did not. However, extreme values of a biomarker (as opposite to the means) may have significant prognostic and diagnostic implications that are not captured in the means. Therefore, we suggest reporting the outcomes by categories of biomarker levels rather than reporting means of biomarker levels within clinical outcome groups.
Topics: Biomarkers; Embryo Implantation; Endometrium; Female; Fertility; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Live Birth; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Multiple
PubMed: 30624659
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmy044 -
Human Reproduction Update Mar 2017Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance.
BACKGROUND
Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method.
SEARCH METHODS
A Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI.
OUTCOMES
One RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05-7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71-4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies. Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00-3.59; P = 0.051; three RCTs; I2 = 71.9%). LBR per cycle was reported by one RCT performed with cleavage-stage embryos and was higher for vitrification (RR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.17-4.44; P = 0.016; 216 cycles; one RCT). A secondary analysis was performed focusing on embryo cryosurvival rate. Pooled data from seven RCTs (3615 embryos) revealed a significant improvement in embryo cryosurvival following vitrification as compared with slow-freezing (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30-1.93; P < 0.001; I2 = 93%).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Data from available RCTs suggest that vitrification/warming is superior to slow-freezing/thawing with regard to clinical outcomes (low quality of the evidence) and cryosurvival rates (moderate quality of the evidence) for oocytes, cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. The results were confirmed by cohort studies. The improvements obtained with the introduction of vitrification have several important clinical implications in ART. Based on this evidence, in particular regarding cryosurvival rates, laboratories that continue to use slow-freezing should consider transitioning to the use of vitrification for cryopreservation.
Topics: Birth Rate; Blastocyst; Cohort Studies; Cryopreservation; Embryo Culture Techniques; Embryo Transfer; Female; Humans; Odds Ratio; Oocytes; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27827818
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmw038 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Advances in embryo culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage-stage embryo transfer to blastocyst-stage embryo transfer.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Advances in embryo culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage-stage embryo transfer to blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. The rationale for blastocyst-stage transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether blastocyst-stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfer improves the live birth rate (LBR) per fresh transfer, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage-stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from inception to October 2021. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of IVF with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer versus IVF with cleavage-stage embryo transfer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were LBR per fresh transfer and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (cCPR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), multiple pregnancy, high-order multiple pregnancy, miscarriage (all following first embryo transfer), failure to transfer embryos, and whether supernumerary embryos were frozen for transfer at a later date (frozen-thawed embryo transfer). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 RCTs (5821 couples or women). The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.51; I = 53%; 15 studies, 2219 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 31% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 32% and 41% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR. A post hoc analysis showed that vitrification could increase the cCPR. This is an interesting finding that warrants further investigation when more studies using vitrification are published. The CPR was also higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.39; I = 51%; 32 studies, 5821 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 39% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 42% and 47% will probably do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer increases multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; I = 30%; 19 studies, 3019 women; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rates (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.38; I = 24%; 22 studies, 4208 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 9% of women have a multiple pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 8% and 12% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. However, a sensitivity analysis restricted only to studies with low or 'some concerns' for risk of bias, in the subgroup of equal number of embryos transferred, showed that blastocyst transfer probably increases the multiple pregnancy rate. Embryo freezing rates (when there are frozen supernumerary embryos for transfer at a later date) were lower in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; I = 84%; 14 studies, 2292 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage-stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst-stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; I = 36%; 17 studies, 2577 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in planned fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 2% and 4% probably have no embryos transferred in planned fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitations were serious imprecision and serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-quality evidence for live birth and moderate-quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst-stage transfer is associated with higher rates of both than fresh cleavage-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval. Although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst-stage transfer in fresh cycles, more evidence is needed to know whether the stage of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage. They should also evaluate women with a poor prognosis to enable those undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well-informed decisions on the best treatment option available.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Blastocyst; Embryo Transfer; Female; Humans; Live Birth; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 35588094
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6 -
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Aug 2021Wide controversy is still ongoing regarding efficiency of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This systematic review and meta-analysis, aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Wide controversy is still ongoing regarding efficiency of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This systematic review and meta-analysis, aims to identify the patient age group that benefits from PGT-A and the best day to biopsy.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was performed on MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Library up to May 2020. Eleven randomized controlled trials employing PGT-A with comprehensive chromosomal screening (CCS) on Day-3 or Day-5 were eligible.
RESULTS
PGT-A did not improve live-birth rates (LBR) per patient in the general population (RR:1.11; 95%CI:0.87-1.42; n=1513; I=75%). However, PGT-A lowered miscarriage rate in the general population (RR:0.45; 95%CI:0.25-0.80; n=912; I=49%). Interestingly, the cumulative LBR per patient was improved by PGT-A (RR:1.36; 95%CI:1.13-1.64; n=580; I=12%). When performing an age-subgroup analysis PGT-A improved LBR in women over the age of 35 (RR:1.29; 95%CI:1.05-1.60; n=692; I=0%), whereas it appeared to be ineffective in younger women (RR:0.92; 95%CI:0.62-1.39; n=666; I=75%). Regarding optimal timing, only day-5 biopsy practice presented with improved LBR per ET (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.03-1.82; I=72%).
CONCLUSION
PGT-A did not improve clinical outcomes for the general population, however PGT-A improved live-birth rates strictly when performed on blastocyst stage embryos of women over the 35-year-old mark.
Topics: Adult; Aneuploidy; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Genetic Testing; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pregnancy; Preimplantation Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34036455
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02227-9 -
International Journal of Molecular... May 2023Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst. ESCs have two distinctive properties: ability to proliferate indefinitely, a... (Review)
Review
Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst. ESCs have two distinctive properties: ability to proliferate indefinitely, a feature referred as "self-renewal", and to differentiate into different cell types, a peculiar characteristic known as "pluripotency". Self-renewal and pluripotency of ESCs are finely orchestrated by precise external and internal networks including epigenetic modifications, transcription factors, signaling pathways, and histone modifications. In this systematic review, we examine the main molecular mechanisms that sustain self-renewal and pluripotency in both murine and human ESCs. Moreover, we discuss the latest literature on human naïve pluripotency.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Mice; Embryonic Stem Cells; Human Embryonic Stem Cells; Blastocyst; Signal Transduction; Transcription Factors; Cell Differentiation
PubMed: 37176093
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24098386 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2021The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of the different therapeutic options for repeated embryo implantation failure (RIF)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of the different therapeutic options for repeated embryo implantation failure (RIF) on a subsequent IVF cycle outcome. Twenty-two RCTs and nineteen observational studies were included. Pooling of results showed a beneficial effect of intrauterine PBMC infusion on both CPR (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.58-3.00; p < 0.00001; OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.22-3.36; p = 0.006) and LBR (RR 2.41; 95% CI 1.40-4.16; p = 0.002; OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.13-12.29; p = 0.03), of subcutaneous G-CSF administration on CPR (RR 2.29; 95% CI 1.58-3.31; p < 0.0001) and of intrauterine PRP infusion on CPR (RR 2.45; 95% CI 1.55-3.86; p = 0.0001). Observational studies also demonstrated a positive effect of IVIG and intrauterine hCG infusion on both CPR and LBR and of atosiban on CPR. Studies investigating intrauterine G-CSF infusion, LMWH, intravenous intralipid, hysteroscopy, blastocyst-stage ET, ZIFT, PGT-A and AH failed to observe an impact on IVF outcome. The quality of the evidence that emerged from RCTs focused on intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration was moderate. For all other therapies/interventions it varied from low to very low. In conclusion, intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration are the most promising therapeutic options for RIF. However, further well conducted RCTs are necessary before their introduction into clinical practice.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Birth Rate; Embryo Implantation; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33462292
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81439-6 -
Fertility and Sterility Jul 2023To date, recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has no clear definition and no clearly identified impaired function. Hence, the term RIF is currently used somewhat... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
To date, recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has no clear definition and no clearly identified impaired function. Hence, the term RIF is currently used somewhat haphazardly, on the basis of clinicians' judgment.
OBJECTIVE
International experts in reproductive medicine met on July 1, 2022, in Lugano, Switzerland, to review the different facets of RIF and define the diagnosis and its appropriate management.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic review without meta-analysis of studies published in English from January 2015 to May 2022.
FINDINGS
Data indicated that RIF has been largely overevaluated, overdiagnosed, and overtreated without sufficient critical assessment of its true nature. Our analyses show that true RIF is extremely uncommon-occurring in <5% of couples with infertility-and that reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases of assisted reproductive technology (ART) failure. Although the true biologic determinants of RIF may exist in a small subset of people with infertility, they elude the currently available tools for assessment. Without identification of the true underlying etiology(ies), it is reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid blastocyst transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryo transfers, adjusted to the patient's age and corresponding euploidy rate). In addition, other factors should be ruled out that may contribute to her reduced odds of sustained implantation. In such cases, implantation failure should not be the only issue considered in case of ART failure because this may result from multiple other factors that are not necessarily repetitive or persistent. In reality, RIF impacting the probability of further ART success is a very rare occurrence.
CONCLUSION
True RIF is extremely uncommon, occurring in <5% of couples with infertility. Reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases. It would seem reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid embryo transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryos, adjusted to her age).
RELEVANCE
Given the number of internationally recognized experts in the field present at the Lugano meeting 2022, our publication constitutes a consensus statement.
Topics: Humans; Female; Embryo Implantation; Embryo Transfer; Infertility; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Aneuploidy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36822566
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.014 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2021Despite the worldwide increase in frozen embryo transfer, the search for the best protocol to prime endometrium continues. Well-designed trials comparing various frozen...
Despite the worldwide increase in frozen embryo transfer, the search for the best protocol to prime endometrium continues. Well-designed trials comparing various frozen embryo transfer protocols in terms of live birth rates, maternal, obstetric and neonatal outcome are urgently required. Currently, low-quality evidence indicates that, natural cycle, either true natural cycle or modified natural cycle, is superior to hormone replacement treatment protocol. Regarding warmed blastocyst transfer and frozen embryo transfer timing, the evidence suggests the 6 day of progesterone start, LH surge+6 day and hCG+7 day in hormone replacement treatment, true natural cycle and modified natural cycle protocols, respectively. Time corrections, due to inter-personal differences in the window of implantation or day of vitrification (day 5 or 6), should be explored further. Recently available evidence clearly indicates that, in hormone replacement treatment and natural cycles, there might be marked inter-personal variation in serum progesterone levels with an impact on reproductive outcomes, despite the use of the same dose and route of progesterone administration. The place of progesterone rescue protocols in patients with low serum progesterone levels one day prior to warmed blastocyst transfer in hormone replacement treatment and natural cycles is likely to be intensively explored in near future.
Topics: Cryopreservation; Embryo Implantation; Embryo Transfer; Endometrium; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 34305815
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.688237 -
Fertility and Sterility Dec 2021To investigate the association between luteal serum progesterone levels and frozen embryo transfer (FET) outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the association between luteal serum progesterone levels and frozen embryo transfer (FET) outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Women undergoing FET.
INTERVENTION(S)
We conducted electronic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and grey literature (not widely available) from inception to March 2021 to identify cohort studies in which the serum luteal progesterone level was measured around the time of FET.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Ongoing pregnancy or live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate.
RESULT(S)
Among the studies analyzing serum progesterone level thresholds <10 ng/mL, a higher serum progesterone level was associated with increased rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth (relative risk [RR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.70), higher chance of clinical pregnancy (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.49), and lower risk of miscarriage (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77) in cycles using exclusively vaginal progesterone and blastocyst embryos. There was uncertainty about whether progesterone thresholds ≥10 ng/mL were associated with FET outcomes in sensitivity analyses including all studies, owing to high interstudy heterogeneity and wide CIs.
CONCLUSION(S)
Our findings indicate that there may be a minimum clinically important luteal serum concentration of progesterone required to ensure an optimal endocrine milieu during embryo implantation and early pregnancy after FET treatment. Future clinical trials are required to assess whether administering higher-dose luteal phase support improves outcomes in women with a low serum progesterone level at the time of FET.
PROSPERO NUMBER
CRD42019157071.
Topics: Cryopreservation; Embryo Transfer; Female; Humans; Live Birth; Luteal Phase; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Prospective Studies; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34384594
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.002 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... May 2017Blastocyst transfer in assisted reproduction techniques could be advantageous because the timing of exposure of the embryo to the uterine environment is more analogous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Blastocyst transfer in assisted reproduction techniques could be advantageous because the timing of exposure of the embryo to the uterine environment is more analogous to a natural cycle and permits embryo self-selection after activation of the embryonic genome on day 3. Conversely, the in-vitro environment is likely to be inferior to that in vivo, and in-vitro culture beyond embryonic genomic activation could potentially harm the embryo. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarize the available evidence comparing the effectiveness of blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer.
METHODS
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the transfer of blastocysts (days 5-6) with the transfer of cleavage-stage embryos (days 2-3) in women undergoing in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The last electronic searches were run on 1 August 2016. Abstracts and studies with a mean difference between the two study groups of > 0.5 for the number of embryos transferred were excluded.
RESULTS
We screened 1187 records and assessed 33 potentially eligible studies. Twelve studies were included, comprising a total of 1200 women undergoing blastocyst transfer and 1218 undergoing cleavage-stage embryo transfer. We observed low-quality evidence of no significant difference of blastocyst transfer on live birth/ongoing pregnancy (relative risk (RR), 1.11 (95% CI, 0.92-1.35), 10 RCTs, 1940 women, I = 54%), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.93-1.31), 12 RCTs, 2418 women, I = 64%), cumulative pregnancy (RR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.67-1.16), four RCTs, 524 women, I = 63%) and miscarriage (RR, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.74-1.56), 10 RCTs, 763 pregnancies, I = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence of a decrease in the number of women with surplus embryos after the blastocyst-stage embryo transfer (RR, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66-0.91)). Overall, the quality of the evidence was limited by the quality of the included studies and by unexplained inconsistency across studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence shows no superiority of blastocyst compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer in clinical practice. As the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes is low, additional well-designed RCTs are still needed before robust conclusions can be drawn. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Blastocyst; Cleavage Stage, Ovum; Embryo Transfer; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple
PubMed: 27731533
DOI: 10.1002/uog.17327