Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should All Patients Undergo Blastocyst Transfer? No

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Emerging Topics in Reproduction

  • 515 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the arguments against always transferring embryos at the blastocyst stage.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ng KYB, Mingels R, Morgan H, Macklon N, Cheong Y. In vivo oxygen, temperature and pH dynamics in the female reproductive tract and their importance in human conception: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:15–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(5):583–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(6):CD002118. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.

  4. Groen H, Tonch N, Simons AH, van der Veen F, Hoek A, Land JA. Modified natural cycle versus controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF: a cost-effectiveness evaluation of three simulated treatment scenarios. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(12):3236–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roesner S, Pflaumer U, Germeyer A, Montag M, Strowitzki T, Toth B. Natural cycle IVF: evaluation of 463 cycles and summary of the current literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(6):1347–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3123-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Allersma T, Farquhar C, Cantineau AE. Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(8):CD010550. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010550.pub2.

  7. Tonkens R. The moral unacceptability of abandoning human embryos. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2016;34(1):52–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-016-0060-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Samorinha C, Pereira M, Machado H, Figueiredo B, Silva S. Factors associated with the donation and non-donation of embryos for research: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):641–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. ASRM. Disposition of abandoned embryos: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1848–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kovalevsky G, Carney SM, Morrison LS, Boylan CF, Neithardt AB, Feinberg RF. Should embryos developing to blastocysts on day 7 be cryopreserved and transferred: an analysis of pregnancy and implantation rates. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):1008–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Su Y, Li JJ, Wang C, Haddad G, Wang WH. Aneuploidy analysis in day 7 human blastocysts produced by in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0157-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bechtejew TN, Nadai MN, Nastri CO, Martins WP. Clomiphene citrate and letrozole to reduce follicle-stimulating hormone consumption during ovarian stimulation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(3):315–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17442.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia CR, Racowsky C. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(11):2561–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew244.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ginstrom Ernstad E, Bergh C, Khatibi A, Kallen KB, Westlander G, Nilsson S, Wennerholm UB. Neonatal and maternal outcome after blastocyst transfer: a population-based registry study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):378 e371–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nastri CO, Nobrega BN, Teixeira DM, Amorim J, Diniz LMM, Barbosa MWP, Giorgi VSI, Pileggi VN, Martins WP. Low versus atmospheric oxygen tension for embryo culture in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):95–104.e117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.037.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil

    Wellington P. Martins MD, PhD

  2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Catherine Racowsky PhD

Authors
  1. Wellington P. Martins MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Racowsky PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Racowsky PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Andrology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

    Douglas T. Carrell

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Catherine Racowsky

  3. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA

    Peter N. Schlegel

  4. NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Alan H. DeCherney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Martins, W.P., Racowsky, C. (2018). Should All Patients Undergo Blastocyst Transfer? No. In: Carrell, D., Racowsky, C., Schlegel, P., DeCherney, A. (eds) Emerging Topics in Reproduction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90823-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90823-6_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90822-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90823-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation