Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of morphologically grade CC blastocysts: are they of clinical value?

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Purpose

To study if the transfer of morphological grade-CC blastocyst is effective and safe.

Methods

This retrospective study included 2585 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles with grade-BB blastocysts and 102 FET cycles with grade-CC blastocysts during the period from January 2006 to December 2017. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of couples in two groups were analyzed before and after propensity score matching.

Results

Pregnancy outcomes showed no significant difference in the rates of biochemical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple gestation, gestational age (P > 0.05). However, the rates of intrauterine implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth were significantly lower in the grade-CC blastocyst transfer group than those in the grade-BB blastocyst transfer group (18.9% vs 46.0%, 21.6% vs 51.3%, 16.7% vs 41.4%, all P < 0.001, respectively) before and after propensity score matching. The assessment of neonatal outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in the birth weight, low birth weight, early-neonatal death, and birth defect, etc., similar results were also observed in the two matched cohorts.

Conclusion

Morphologically grade-CC blastocysts should be transferred rather than discarded, resulting in acceptable pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, which is beneficial to infertile patients suffering from repeated poor-quality embryos.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adler A, Lee HL, McCulloh DH, Ampeloquio E, Clarke-Williams M, Wertz BH, Grifo J (2014) Blastocyst culture selects for euploid embryos: comparison of blastomere and trophectoderm biopsies. Reprod Biomed Online 28(4):485–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.11.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Campana A, Bischof P, Sakkas D (1998) The rate of development and time of transfer play different roles in influencing the viability of human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 13(3):676–681. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.3.676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK, Lane M, Schlenker T, Hamilton F, Meldrum DR (1999) Blastocyst culture and transfer: analysis of results and parameters affecting outcome in two in vitro fertilization programs. Fertil Steril 72(4):604–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00311-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Almagor M, Harir Y, Fieldust S, Or Y, Shoham Z (2016) Ratio between inner cell mass diameter and blastocyst diameter is correlated with successful pregnancy outcomes of single blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril 106(6):1386–1391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen X, Zhang J, Wu X et al (2014) Trophectoderm morphology predicts outcomes of pregnancy in vitrified-warmed single-blastocyst transfer cycle in a Chinese population. J Assist Reprod Genet 31(11):1475–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0317-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Du QY, Wang EY, Huang Y, Guo XY, Xiong YJ, Yu YP, Yao GD, Shi SL, Sun YP (2016) Blastocoele expansion degree predicts live birth after single blastocyst transfer for fresh and vitrified/warmed single blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 105(4):910–919.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.12.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ebner T, Tritscher K, Mayer RB, Oppelt P, Duba HC, Maurer M, Schappacher-Tilp G, Petek E, Shebl O (2016) Quantitative and qualitative trophectoderm grading allows for prediction of live birth and gender. J Assist Reprod Genet 33(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0609-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Subira J, Craig J, Turner K, Bevan A, Ohuma E, McVeigh E, Child T, Fatum M (2016) Grade of the inner cell mass, but not trophectoderm, predicts live birth in fresh blastocyst single transfers. Hum Fertil (Camb) 19(4):254–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2016.1223357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhao J, Yan Y, Huang X, Sun L, Li Y (2019) Blastocoele expansion: an important parameter for predicting clinical success pregnancy after frozen-warmed blastocysts transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 17(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0454-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahlström A, Westin C, Wikland M, Hardarson T (2013) Prediction of live birth in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles by pre-freeze and post-thaw morphology. Hum Reprod 28(5):1199–1209. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det054

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB (2000) Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 73(6):1155–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00518-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hill MJ, Richter KS, Heitmann RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ, DeCherney AH, Browne PE, Levens ED (2013) Trophectoderm grade predicts outcomes of single-blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril 99(5):1283–1289.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van den Abbeel E, Balaban B, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Cuesta MJ, Klein BM, Helmgaard L, Arce JC (2013) Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 27(4):353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.07.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhao YY, Yu Y, Zhang XW (2018) Overall blastocyst quality, trophectoderm grade, and inner cell mass grade predict pregnancy outcome in euploid blastocyst transfer cycles. Chin Med J (Engl) 131(11):1261–1267. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.232808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wintner EM, Hershko-Klement A, Tzadikevitch K, Ghetler Y, Gonen O, Wintner O, Shulman A, Wiser A (2017) Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo together with a good quality embryo affect the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) outcome. J Ovarian Res 10(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-016-0297-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Porat-Katz A, Eldar-Geva T, Kahane A, Paltiel O (2017) Using propensity score matching to evaluate the effect of complementary medicine on clinical and embryologic outcomes of in vitro fertilization. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 138(2):212–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yin Y, Chen G, Li K, Liao Q, Zhang S, Ma N, Chen J, Zhang Y, Ai J (2017) Propensity score-matched study and meta-analysis of cumulative outcomes of day 2/3 versus day 5/6 embryo transfers. Front Med 11(4):563–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-017-0535-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li B, Zhou Y, Yan Z et al (2019) Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of artificial oocyte activation in patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a 6-year population-based retrospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300(4):1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05298-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology (2011) The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 26(6):1270–1283. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuang Y, Hong Q, Chen Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Shoham Z (2014) Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 101(1):105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, Sullivan E, Vanderpoel S, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology, World Health Organization (2009) International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology. Fertil Steril 92(5):1520–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhu J, Zhu Q, Wang Y, Wang B, Lyu Q, Kuang Y (2019) Comparative study on risk for birth defects among infants after in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Syst Biol Reprod Med 65(1):54–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19396368.2018.1554012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu Q, Wang N, Wang B, Wang Y, Kuang Y (2018) The risk of birth defects among children born after vitrified blastocyst transfers and those born after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage embryo transfers. Arch Gynecol Obstet 298(4):833–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4870-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harada Y, Maeda T, Fukunaga E, Shiba R, Okano S, Kinutani M, Horiuchi T (2020) Selection of high-quality and viable blastocysts based on timing of morula compaction and blastocyst formation. Reprod Med Biol 19(1):58–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Marjoribanks J, Farquhar C (2019) Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD011320. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mascarenhas M, Fox SJ, Thompson K, Balen AH (2019) Cumulative live birth rates and perinatal outcomes with the use of time-lapse imaging incubators for embryo culture: a retrospective cohort study of 1882 ART cycles. BJOG 126(2):280–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Magdi Y, Samy A, Abbas AM, Ibrahim MA, Edris Y, El-Gohary A, Fathi AM, Fawzy M (2019) Effect of embryo selection based morphokinetics on IVF/ICSI outcomes: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300(6):1479–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05335-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S (2015) Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(10):e0140779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140779

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA (2015) Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 104(6):1503–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mastenbroek S, Repping S (2014) Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod 29(9):1846–1850. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Buffo L, Trabucco E, Ferrero S, Albani E, Rienzi L, Levi Setti PE (2017) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril 107(5):1173–1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Patrizio P, Shoham G, Shoham Z, Leong M, Barad DH, Gleicher N (2019) Worldwide live births following the transfer of chromosomally "Abnormal" embryos after PGT/A: results of a worldwide web-based survey. J Assist Reprod Genet 36(8):1599–1607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01510-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Montag M, Liebenthron J, Köster M (2011) Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development. Placenta 32(Suppl 3):S252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2011.07.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Barash OO, Ivani KA, Willman SP, Rosenbluth EM, Wachs DS, Hinckley MD, Pittenger Reid S, Weckstein LN (2017) Association between growth dynamics, morphological parameters, the chromosomal status of the blastocysts, and clinical outcomes in IVF PGS cycles with single embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 34(8):1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0944-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Du T, Wang Y, Fan Y et al (2018) Fertility and neonatal outcomes of embryos achieving blastulation on Day 7: are they of clinical value. Hum Reprod 33(6):1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Irani M, O'Neill C, Palermo GD et al (2018) Blastocyst development rate influences implantation and live birth rates of similarly graded euploid blastocysts. Fertil Steril 110(1):95–102.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Oron G, Son WY, Buckett W, Tulandi T, Holzer H (2014) The association between embryo quality and perinatal outcome of singletons born after single embryo transfers: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 29(7):1444–1451. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhu J, Lian Y, Li M, Chen L, Liu P, Qiao J (2014) Does IVF cleavage stage embryo quality affect pregnancy complications and neonatal outcomes in singleton gestations after double embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 31(12):1635–1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0351-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN (1997) Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 12(7):1545–1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.7.1545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nakagawa K, Ojiro Y, Nishi Y, Sugiyama R, Motoyama H, Sugiyama R (2016) Perinatal outcomes of patients who achieved pregnancy with a morphologically poor embryo via assisted reproductive technology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293(1):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3815-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bouillon C, Celton N, Kassem S, Frapsauce C, Guérif F (2017) Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singletons after single blastocyst transfer: is there any difference according to blastocyst morphology. Reprod Biomed Online 35(2):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Morbeck DE (2017) Blastocyst culture in the Era of PGS and FreezeAlls: Is a 'C' a failing grade. Hum Reprod Open. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hox017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Whittaker W, Anselmi L, Kristensen SR et al (2016) Associations between extending access to primary care and emergency department visits: a difference-in-differences analysis. PLoS Med 13(9):e1002113. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by The National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 81971448, 81771649 and 81701523).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Menghui Li and Mingru Yin contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Assisted Reproduction, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200011, China

    Menghui Li, Mingru Yin, Ling Wu, Zhiguang Yan, Qifeng Lyu, Zheng Yan & Bin Li

Authors
  1. Menghui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mingru Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ling Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhiguang Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qifeng Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zheng Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BL and ZY conceived and designed the study; ML, MY and BL were involved in acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising the article; LW, ZY and QL were involved in acquisition and interpretation of data. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zheng Yan or Bin Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, M., Yin, M., Wu, L. et al. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of morphologically grade CC blastocysts: are they of clinical value?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 302, 1511–1521 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05741-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05741-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation