Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 563–567 | Cite as

The simplified SART embryo scoring system is highly correlated to implantation and live birth in single blastocyst transfers

  • Ryan J. Heitmann
  • Micah J. Hill
  • Kevin S. Richter
  • Alan H. DeCherney
  • Eric A. WidraEmail author
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

Abstract

Objective

Prior studies have validated the ability of the SART embryo scoring system to correlate with outcomes in cleavage stage embryo transfers. However, this scoring system has not been evaluated in blastocyst transfers. The objective of this study was to estimate the correlation between the simplified SART embryo scoring system and ART cycle outcomes in single blastocyst transfers.

Materials and methods

All fresh, autologous single blastocyst transfers cycles from a large ART center from 2010 were analyzed. Blastocysts were given a single grade of good, fair, or poor based upon SART criteria which combines the grading of the inner cell mass and trophectoderm. Multiple logistic regression assessed the predictive value of the SART grade on embryo implantation and live birth.

Results

Seven hundred seventeen fresh, autologous single blastocyst transfers cycles were included in the analysis. The live birth rate was 52 % and included both elective and non-elective SBT. Chi square analysis showed higher live birth in good grade embryos as compared to fair (p = 0.03) and poor (p = 0.02). Univariate binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated SART embryo grading to be significantly correlated with both implantation and live birth (p < 0.01). This significance persisted when patient age, BMI, and the stage of the blastocyst were controlled for with multiple logistic regression. In five patients with a poor blastocyst score, there were no live births.

Conclusion

These data demonstrate that the SART embryo scoring system is highly correlated to implantation and live birth in single blastocyst transfers. Patients with a good grade embryo are excellent candidates for a single blastocyst transfer.

Keywords

In-vitro fertilization Single blastocycst transfer Embryo morphology Implantation Live birth 

References

  1. 1.
    Boiso I, Veiga A, Edwards RG. Fundamentals of human embryonic growth in vitro and the selection of high-quality embryos for transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;5(3):328–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Csokmay JM, Hill MJ, Chason RJ, et al. Experience with a patient-friendly, mandatory, single-blastocyst transfer policy: the power of one. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):580–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feinberg EC, Larsen FW, Catherino WH, et al. Comparison of assisted reproductive technology utilization and outcomes between Caucasian and African American patients in an equal-access-to-care setting. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:888–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fujimoto VY, Luke B, Brown MB, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in assisted reproductive technology outcomes in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:382–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In-vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: fertility and genetics beyond. Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing; 1999. p. 378–88.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardner DK, Stevens J, Sheldon CB, Schoolcraft W. Analysis of blastocyst morphology. In: Elder K, Cohen J, editors. Human preimplantation embryo selection. London: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huddleston HG, Cedars MI, Sohn SH, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):413–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kresowik JD, Stegmann BJ, Sparks AE, et al. Five-years of a mandatory single-embryo transfer (mSET) policy dramatically reduces twinning rate without lowering pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(6):1367–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neithardt AM, Segars JH, Hennessy S, et al. Embryo afterloading: a refinement in embryo transfer technique that may increase clinical pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):710–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pinborg A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:575–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Purcell K, Schembri M, Frazier LM, et al. Asian ethnicity is associated with reduced pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:297–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryan GL, Sparks AE, Sipe CS, et al. A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Racowsky C, Stern JE, Gibbons WE, et al. National collection of embryo morphology data into SARTCORS: associations among cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry on day 3 with live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3, suppl):S82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Racowsky C, Vernon M, Mayer J, et al. Standardization of grading embryo morphology. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:437–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharara FI, McClamrock HD. Differences in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome between white and black women in an inner-city, university-based IVF program. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1170–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stillman RJ, Richter KS, Banks NK, Graham JR. Elective single embryo transfer: A 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(6):1895–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Veeck L. An atlas of human gametes and conceptuses. Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing; 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vernon M, Stern JE, Ball GD, et al. Utility of the national embryo morphology data collection by SART: correlation between morphologic grade and live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3, suppl):S164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan J. Heitmann
    • 1
  • Micah J. Hill
    • 1
  • Kevin S. Richter
    • 2
  • Alan H. DeCherney
    • 1
  • Eric A. Widra
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science CenterRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations