Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Day of trophectoderm biopsy and embryo quality are associated with outcomes following euploid embryo transfer

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare clinical outcomes following transfer of euploid blastocysts of varying quality biopsied on day 5 versus day 6.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study to evaluate embryo transfer outcomes for women undergoing autologous cryopreserved next generation sequencing euploid single embryo transfer from 10/2015 to 2/2022 at an academic IVF program. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR). Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), implantation rate (IR), and miscarriage rate (SAB rate).

Results

Five hundred and fifty-five transfers from 418 patients were analyzed. Euploid embryos biopsied on day 5 resulted in higher LBR compared to those biopsied on day 6 (62.3% vs. 49.6%; aRR 0.81 95% CI 0.65–0.996). When stratified by biopsy day and blastocyst quality, there was no difference in IR, OPR, and SAB rate for good, fair, and poor quality blastocysts biopsied on day 5 versus day 6. However, day 5 good quality embryos were associated with a higher LBR compared to day 6 good quality embryos (74.3% vs. 51.3%; aRR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48–0.999). There were no significant differences in LBR for fair and poor quality embryos biopsied on day 5 versus day 6.

Conclusion

Overall LBR are higher for euploid embryos biopsied on day 5 versus day 6. When stratified by embryo quality and day of biopsy, LBR are significantly higher for good quality day 5 versus day 6 embryos. When choosing between multiple euploid embryos, day 5 biopsied good quality embryos should be preferentially selected for transfer over day 6 embryos of the same quality.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and materials support the published claims and comply with field standards.

Code availability

All statistical analyses were performed with SAS® software version 9.4.

References

  1. Maxwell SM, Grifo JA. Should every embryo undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy? A review of the modern approach to in vitro fertilization. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;53:38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1173–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Viñals Gonzalez X, Odia R, Naja R, et al. Euploid blastocysts implant irrespective of their morphology after NGS-(PGT-A) testing in advanced maternal age patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(8):1623–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Irani M, Reichman D, Robles A, et al. Morphologic grading of euploid blastocysts influences implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):664–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao Y-Y, Yu Y, Zhang X-W. Overall Blastocyst quality, trophectoderm grade, and inner cell mass grade predict pregnancy outcome in euploid blastocyst transfer cycles. Chin Med J (Engl). 2018;131(11):1261–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Irani M, Palermo GD, Xu K, et al. Blastocyst development rate influences implantation and live birth rates of similarly graded euploid blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(1):95-102.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maxwell SM, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B, et al. Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case-control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1414-1419.e5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bakkensen JB, Brady P, Carusi D, et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes following fresh and cryopreserved embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(11):2315–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5(1):24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):697–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Piccolomini MM, Nicolielo M, Bonetti TCS, et al. Does slow embryo development predict a high aneuploidy rate on trophectoderm biopsy? Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(3):398–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cozzolino M, García-Velasco JA, Meseguer M, et al. Female obesity increases the risk of miscarriage of euploid embryos. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(6):1495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, et al. Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of day 5 or day 6 blastocysts may reflect differences in embryo-endometrium synchrony. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):20–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Barrenetxea G, De Larruzea AL, Ganzabal T, et al. Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(1):49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferreux L, Bourdon M, Sallem A, et al. Live birth rate following frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer is higher with blastocysts expanded on Day 5 than on Day 6. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(3):390–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haas J, Meriano J, Laskin C, et al. Clinical pregnancy rate following frozen embryo transfer is higher with blastocysts vitrified on day 5 than on day 6. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(12):1553–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tubbing A, Shaw-Jackson C, Ameye L, et al. Increased live births after day 5 versus day 6 transfers of vitrified-warmed blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(3):417–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, et al. Comparison of aneuploidy, pregnancy and live birth rates between day 5 and day 6 blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(3):305–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dokras A, Sargent IL, Gardner RL, et al. Human trophectoderm biopsy and secretion of chorionic gonadotrophin. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(10):1453–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(6):1155–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, et al. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2245–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Levi-Setti PE, et al. Associations of blastocyst features, trophectoderm biopsy and other laboratory practice with post-warming behavior and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(11):1992–2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang L, Bogale B, Tang Y, et al. Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in spent medium may be more reliable than trophectoderm biopsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(28):14105–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Infertility and Reproductive Surgery, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Catherine E. Gordon, Andrea Lanes & Ann Thomas

  2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Hôpital Foch, 40 Rue Worth, 92150, Suresnes, France

    Catherine Racowsky

Authors
  1. Catherine E. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Lanes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ann Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Racowsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Catherine Gordon, Andrea Lanes, and Ann Thomas. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Catherine Gordon and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine E. Gordon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 21 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gordon, C.E., Lanes, A., Thomas, A. et al. Day of trophectoderm biopsy and embryo quality are associated with outcomes following euploid embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 2539–2546 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02613-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02613-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation