Supernumerary Blastocyst Cryopreservation: A key Prognostic Indicator for Patients Opting for an Elective Single Blastocyst Transfer (eSBT)
- 147 Downloads
To determine if patients, less than 40 years of age with or without day 5 cryopreservation (d5 cryo), compromise their pregnancy rate (PR) by choosing an eSBT.
University IVF center
2,203 non-donor fresh IVF cycles in women <40 years of age from January 2004 to January 2010.
Main outcome measure(s)
Eggs retrieved, Embryos cryopreserved, Implantation Rates, Clinical Pregnancy Rates, Live Birth Rates, Spontaneous Abortion Rates
Pregnancy outcomes in women <40 years with or without d5 cryo were compared according to whether patients underwent an eSBT versus a 2BT in non-donor fresh IVF cycles. Overall, eSBT was associated with elimination of twinning while maintaining a high clinical pregnancy rate in both groups with d5 cryo (75 % eSBT versus 72 % 2BT) and groups without d5 cryo (48 % eSBT versus 56 % 2BT).
In this study, patients <40 years of age have eliminated twinning by electively choosing to transfer a single blastocyst without compromising their PR if embryos are available for d5 cryo, and suffer only a non-statistically significant drop in their PR if there are no embryos available for d5 cryo in exchange for the benefit of eliminating the obstetrical risk of twinning.
KeywordsSingle blastocyst transfer Blastocyst Cryopreservation
The authors wish to thank the embryology staff and physicians at the NYU Fertility Center who have contributed to the art of IVF.
- 12.Debrock S, et al. New Belgian legislation regarding the limitation of transferable embryos in in vitro fertilization cycles does not significantly influence the pregnancy rate but reduces the multiple pregnancy rate in a threefold way in the Leuven University Fertility Center. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1572–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2003 assisted reproductive technology success rates. Atlanta: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2005.Google Scholar
- 17.Crowther CA. Multiple pregnancies. In: James DK, Steer PJ, Weinger CP, Gonik B, editors. High risk pregnancy: management options. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002. p. 129–52.Google Scholar
- 21.Menezo Y, Nicollet B, Herbaut N, Andre D. Freezing co-cultured human blastocyst. Fertil Steril. 1992;59:977–80.Google Scholar
- 22.National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2001 Assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic reports. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 2003.Google Scholar
- 38.Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;17(4):CD002118.Google Scholar
- 41.The practice committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):S174–7.Google Scholar