Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Early compaction at day 3 may be a useful additional criterion for embryo transfer

  • ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The reduction of the number of embryos transferred while maintaining a satisfactory rate of pregnancy (PR) with in vitro fertilization calls for a refined technique of embryonic selection. This prospective study investigates the significance of early embryonic compaction at day 3 as a marker of the chances of implantation.

Methods

We examined 317 transfers and their outcome involving 509 embryos including 91 compacted embryos.

Results

Early compaction seems linked with the ovarian response to stimulation and embryonic quality. The PR is significantly increased when the embryonic cohort contains at least one compacted embryo (44 % versus 29.5 %, p = 0.01), and when at least one compacted embryo is transferred (44 % versus 31 %, p < 0.05). The analysis of our single embryo transfers shows that the implantation rates are significantly better for compacted embryos (50 % versus 30 %, p < 0.05) (OR 2.98; CI 1.02–5.28).

Conclusion

Thus, early compaction, sometimes observed at day 3, may serve as a useful additional criterion for selecting the embryos transferred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aboulghar MM, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin YM, Abou-Setta AM. Pregnancy rate is not improved by delaying embryo transfer from days 2 to 3. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;107:176–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bahceci M, Ulug U, Ciray HN, Akman MA, Erden HF. Efficiency of changing the embryo transfer time from day 3 to day 2 among women with poor ovarian response: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:81–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blondel B, Kaminski M. Trends in the occurrence, determinants, and consequences of multiple births. Semin Perinatol. 2002;26:239–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blondel B, Kogan MD, Alexander GR, Dattani N, Kramer MS, Macfarlane A, et al. The impact of the increasing number of multiple births on the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight: an international study. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1323–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bolton VN, Braude PR. Development of the human preimplantation embryo in vitro. Curr Top Dev Biol. 1987;23:93–114.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 1988;332:459–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev. 2009;30:465–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chason RJ, Csokmay J, Segars JH, DeCherney AH, Armant DR. Environmental and epigenetic effects upon preimplantation embryo metabolism and development. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2011;22:412–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2190–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ebner T, Moser M, Shebl O, Sommergruber M, Gaiswinkler U, Tews G. Morphological analysis at compacting stage is a valuable prognostic tool for ICSI patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:61–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Embryology A. S. i. R. M. a. E. S. I. G. o. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Feenan K, Herbert M. Can ‘abnormally’ fertilized zygotes give rise to viable embryos? Hum Fertil (Camb). 2006;9:157–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Moreira P, Bilbao A, Jimenez A, Perez-Crespo M, Ramirez MA, et al. Long-term effect of in vitro culture of mouse embryos with serum on mRNA expression of imprinting genes, development, and behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:5880–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gosden R, Trasler J, Lucifero D, Faddy M. Rare congenital disorders, imprinted genes, and assisted reproductive technology. Lancet. 2003;361:1975–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Huisman GJ, Alberda AT, Leerentveld RA, Verhoeff A, Zeilmaker GH. A comparison of in vitro fertilization results after embryo transfer after 2, 3, and 4 days of embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 1994;61:970–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ivec M, Kovacic B, Vlaisavljevic V. Prediction of human blastocyst development from morulas with delayed and/or incomplete compaction. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:1473–8. e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kanka J. Gene expression and chromatin structure in the pre-implantation embryo. Theriogenology. 2003;59:3–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kligman I, Benadiva C, Alikani M, Munne S. The presence of multinucleated blastomeres in human embryos is correlated with chromosomal abnormalities. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1492–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Laverge H, De Sutter P, Van der Elst J, Dhont M. A prospective, randomized study comparing day 2 and day 3 embryo transfer in human IVF. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:476–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:385–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Luna M, Copperman AB, Duke M, Ezcurra D, Sandler B, Barritt J. Human blastocyst morphological quality is significantly improved in embryos classified as fast on day 3 (> or = 10 cells), bringing into question current embryological dogma. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:358–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:534–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1481–9. e10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mio Y, Maeda K. Time-lapse cinematography of dynamic changes occurring during in vitro development of human embryos. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:660. e1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pantos K, Makrakis E, Chronopoulou M, Biba M, Perdikaris A, Dafereras A. Day 4 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a prospective study of clinical outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:573–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 1987;2:705–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rijnders PM, Jansen CA. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2869–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schultz RM. From egg to embryo: a peripatetic journey. Reproduction. 2005;130:825–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Seli E, Robert C, Sirard MA. OMICS in assisted reproduction: possibilities and pitfalls. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16:513–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Shahine LK, Milki AA, Westphal LM, Baker VL, Behr B, Lathi RB. Day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer in poor responders: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:330–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shapiro BS, Harris DC, Richter KS. Predictive value of 72-hour blastomere cell number on blastocyst development and success of subsequent transfer based on the degree of blastocyst development. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:582–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shen S, Rosen MP, Dobson AT, Fujimoto VY, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. Day 2 transfer improves pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization cycles with few available embryos. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Skiadas CC, Jackson KV, Racowsky C. Early compaction on day 3 may be associated with increased implantation potential. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1386–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tao J, Tamis R, Fink K, Williams B, Nelson-White T, Craig R. The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1513–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tsai YC, Chung MT, Sung YH, Tsai TF, Tsai YT, Lin LY. Clinical value of early cleavage embryo. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;76:293–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Vajta G, Rienzi L, Cobo A, Yovich J. Embryo culture: can we perform better than nature? Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:453–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1545–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms. C. Douillard, M. Guezenec, S. Lehais and C. Moyon, technicians at the In Vitro Fertilization Laboratory of the University Hospital of Angers, for their participation in the classification of embryos. We thank P. Saulnier for his help in the statistical analysis. We are grateful to Kanaya Malkani for his critical reading and comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d’Angers, 49933, Angers cedex 9, France

    Sébastien Le Cruguel, Véronique Ferré-L’Hôtellier & Pascale May-Panloup

  2. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d’Angers, 49933, Angers cedex 9, France

    Catherine Morinière, Sophie Lemerle & Philippe Descamps

  3. Laboratoire de Biochimie et Biologie Moléculaire, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d’Angers, 49933, Angers cedex 9, France

    Pascal Reynier

  4. UMR CNRS 6214-INSERM U771, 49933, Angers cedex 9, France

    Pascal Reynier & Pascale May-Panloup

Authors
  1. Sébastien Le Cruguel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Véronique Ferré-L’Hôtellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine Morinière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sophie Lemerle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pascal Reynier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Philippe Descamps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pascale May-Panloup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascale May-Panloup.

Additional information

Contribution for each author

SLC and PMP were the principal investigators and take primary responsibility for the paper. PMP and VFH contributed to the conception of design and coordinated the research. CaM, SL and PhD recruited the patients. SLC and PMP contributed to the collection and assembly of data. SLC and PMP contributed to the data analysis and interpretation. SLC and PMP contributed to manuscript writing. PMP, VFH, CaM, SL, PR, and PhD contributed to the drafting of the article, revised it and approved the final version.

Capsule

Early compaction at day 3 may serve as an additional criterion for embryo selection to improve pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Le Cruguel, S., Ferré-L’Hôtellier, V., Morinière, C. et al. Early compaction at day 3 may be a useful additional criterion for embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 683–690 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-9983-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-9983-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation