4.6 Article

Can repeated IVF-ICSI-cycles be avoided by using blastocysts developing from poor-quality cleavage stage embryos?

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 241-247

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.11.016

Keywords

blastocyst; cleavage stage; cryopreservation; cumulative delivery rate; embryo quality; poor quality

Funding

  1. Competitive State Research Financing of The Expert Responsibility area of Tampere University Hospital [9R052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In many clinics, good-quality embryos are selected for embryo transfer and cryopreservation at the cleavage stage, and poor-quality embryos are discarded. The aim of this retrospective study was to examine how many repeated IVF cycles could be avoided by culturing the cleavage stage poor-quality embryos to blastocyst stage and transferring them after vitrification and warming (604 IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection [IVF-ICSI] cycles were included). Poor-quality cleavage stage embryos not eligible for transfer or cryopreservation were cultured until day 5 or 6, and those developing to the blastocyst stage were vitrified. The rate of vitrified blastocysts and clinical pregnancy and delivery rate of the warmed blastocysts was evaluated. The effect of the extended culture on the cumulative delivery rate, and the number of avoided new treatment cycles was calculated. The surplus blastocysts resulted in clinical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion and delivery rates of 24.6%, 27.3% and 17.2% respectively. The use of surplus blastocysts raised cumulative delivery rate from 43% to 47% and 53 repeated new cycles were avoided. This study shows that the cumulative delivery rate can be increased, and repeated IVF-ICSI treatments avoided by using blastocysts developing from poor-quality cleavage stage embryos, which otherwise would have been discarded. (C) 2014 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available