Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 1077–1081 | Cite as

Day 3 embryo transfer may have better pregnancy outcomes in younger than 35-year-old patients with poor ovarian response

  • Zhi-min Xin
  • Bin Xu
  • Hai-xia Jin
  • Wen-yan Song
  • Ying-pu Sun



To explore the pregnancy outcomes of embryo transfer with D2 or D3 embryos in patients with poor ovarian response.


The pregnancy outcomes of 620 patients who had poor ovarian response and underwent the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 620 cycles, all available fresh D2 embryos were used in 365 cycles (day 2 embryo transfer) and all available fresh D3 embryos were used in 255 cycles (day 3 embryo transfer) without superfluous embryos for freezing.


There was a significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate between day 2 (32.73 %) and day 3 (50.83 %) embryo transfer in younger than 35-year-old patients, but no significant differences in implantation rate, live birth rate and spontaneous abortion rate (P > 0.05). There were similar pregnancy outcomes between day 2 and 3 embryo transfer in 35-year and older patients.


D3 embryo transfer may have better pregnancy outcomes in younger than 35-year-old patients with poor ovarian response.


Poor ovarian response In vitro fertilization Pregnancy outcomes All available embryos 



This study was supported by the Innovation Talent Fund for Healthy Science and Technology of Henan Province and the Youth Fund from the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University.


  1. 1.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frankfurter D, Keefe DL, Timarchi JB. Day 2 embryo transfer improves IVF-ET outcome in the poor responder. Fertil Steril. 2003;80 Suppl 3:S61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ravhon A, Weissman A, Fleischfarb Z, et al. Day 3 versus day 2 embryo transfer in daily clinical practice: is it worth or worse to expand the culture time? Fertil Steril. 2006;86 Suppl 2:S246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frandstrom M, Akerlof E, Sjoblom P, Hillensjo T. Serum levels of Luteinizing and follicle stimulating hormones in nomal and poor responding patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with urofollitropin after pituitary down regulaIio. Gy Endocrinol. 1997;11:25–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raga F, Bonilla Musoles F, Casan EM, Bonilla F. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone stimulation in poor responders with normal basal concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone and oestradio: improved reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1431–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rombauts L, Suikkari A, Madachlan V, Trounson AO, Healy DL. Recruitment of follicles by recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone commencing in the luteal phase of the ovarian cycle. Fertit Steril. 1998;69:665669.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sallam HN, Ezzeldin F, Agameya AF, Rahman AF, El-Garem Y. Defining poor responders in assisted reproduction. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2005;50:115–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindheim SR, Barad DH, Witt B, Ditkoff E, Sauer MV. Short term gonadotrpin suppression with oral contraceptive benefits poor respond prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulalion. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;9:745–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brzyski RG, Muasher SJ, Droeseh K, Simonetti S, Jones GS, Rosenwaks Z. Follicular atresia associated with concurrent initiation of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist and follicle. Fertil Steril. 1988;50:917–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brirtsden PR. A textbook of in vitro fertilization and assisted reproduction. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group lnc 1999:96.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castelo Branco A, Achour-Frydman N, Kadoch J, Fanchin R, Tachdjian G, Frydman R. In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in seminature cycles for patients with ovarian aging. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:875–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Almeida PA, Bolton VN. Cytogenetic analysis of human preimplantation embryos following developmental arrest in vitro. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1998;10:505–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laverge H, De Sutter P, Van der Elst J, et al. A prospective, randomized study comparing day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer in human IVF. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:476–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ashrafi M, Kiani K, Mirzaagha E, et al. The Pregnancy Outcomes of Day 2 versus Day 3 Embryo Transfer: A Cross-Sectional Study. Iranian Journal of Fertility & Sterility. 2007;1:47–54.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhi-min Xin
    • 1
  • Bin Xu
    • 2
  • Hai-xia Jin
    • 1
  • Wen-yan Song
    • 1
  • Ying-pu Sun
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Reproductive Medical Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityZhengzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations