Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vitrification of blastocysts derived from fair to poor quality cleavage stage embryos can produce high pregnancy rates after warming

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigates whether certain embryos considered unsuitable for cryopreservation on day 3 might nevertheless have the potential to develop into worthwhile blastocysts that could be vitrified in the same cycle.

Methods

Retrospective study: between 2010 and 2011, embryo transfers and cryopreservation took place mainly on day 3 in our centre. Supernumerary embryos of intermediate to poor quality were reassessed on days 5/6 and any good quality blastocysts were vitrified.

Results

Out of 914 cleavage stage (day 3) embryos left in culture, 16 % were vitrified on days 5/6. Fifty blastocyst warming cycles resulted in a 76 % survival rate, 44 % clinical pregnancy rate and 39 % implantation rate. During the same time period, 213 warming cycles of good quality cleavage stage embryos rendered survival rates, clinical pregnancy and implantation rates of 97 %, 23 % and 16 % respectively.

Conclusions

Supernumerary average quality day 3 embryos should be given a second chance to be selected for cryopreservation. If blastocysts are obtained and survive vitrification, there is a good chance of implantation thus reducing embryo waste.

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. Balaban B, Urman B, Alatas C, Mercan R, Aksoy S, Isiklar A. Blastocyst-stage transfer of poor-quality cleavage-stage embryos results in higher implantation rates. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(3):514–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomized controlled study of human Day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(9):1976–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Begley CG. Six red flags for suspect work. Nature. 2013;497(7450):433–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M (2011) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Oct 17;(4):CD002118. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.

  5. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Buccheri M, Maggiulli R, Sapienza F, Romano S, et al. The worldwide frozen embryo reservoir: methodologies to achieve optimal results. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1221:32–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Delvigne A, Kostyla K, Murillo D, Van Hoeck J, Rozenberg S. Oocyte quality and IVF outcome after coasting to prevent ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2003;48(1):25–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Gaiswinkler U, Shebl O, Jesacher K, et al. Occurrence and developmental consequences of vacuoles throughout preimplantation development. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(6):1635–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ebner T, Shebl O, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G. Developmental fate of ovoid oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(1):62–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(5):536–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fanchin R, Ayoubi JM, Righini C, Olivennes F, Schonauer LM, Frydman R. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(6):1115–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy in the human blastocyst. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2011;133(2–4):149–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: infertility and genetics beyond. Carnforth: Parthernon Press; 1999. p. 378–88.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Graham J, Han T, Porter R, Levy M, Stillman R, Tucker MJ. Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(3):495–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Guerif F, Frapsauce C, Chavez C, Cadoret V, Royere D. Treating women under 36 years old without top-quality embryos on day 2: a prospective study comparing double embryo transfer with single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(4):775–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hammarberg K, Astbury J, Baker H. Women’s experience of IVF: a follow-up study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(2):374–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hardarson T, Ahlström A, Rogberg L, Botros L, Hillensjö T, Westlander G, et al. Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of Day 2 and 5 embryo culture medium: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(1):89–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hardarson T, Caisander G, Sjögren A, Hanson C, Hamberger L, Lundin K. A morphological and chromosomal study of blastocysts developing from morphologically suboptimal human pre-embryos compared with control blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(2):399–407.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kader AA, Choi A, Orief Y, Agarwal A. Factors affecting the outcome of human blastocyst vitrification. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7:99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kolibianikis EM, Zikopoulos K, Verpoest W, Camus M, Joris H, Van Steirteghem AC. Should we advise patients undergoing IVF to start a cycle leading to a day 3 or a day 5 transfer? Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2550–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which one is better? Current Opinion Obstetric Gynecology. 2009;21(3):270–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liebermann J. Vitrification of human blastocysts: an update. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 4:4328.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(1):186–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lundin K, Bergh C. Cumulative impact of adding frozen-thawed cycles to single versus double fresh embryo transfers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15(1):76–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):534–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Manipalviratn S, DeCherney A, Segars J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):305–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mesut N, Ciray HN, Mesut A, Aksoy T, Bahceci M. Cryopreservation of blastocysts is the most feasible strategy in good responder patients. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(5):1121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Gebhardt J, Dasig D, Westphal LM, Behr B. Accuracy of day 3 criteria for selecting the best embryos. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(6):1191–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mukaida T, Oka C, Goto T, Takahashi K. Artificial shrinkage of blastocoels using either a micro-needle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3246–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Munné S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(2):234–53. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Olivius C, Friden B, Borg G, Bergh C. Why do couples discontinue in vitro fertilization treatment? A cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(2):258–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ren X, Liu Q, Chen W, Zhu G, Li Y, Jin L, et al. Selection and vitrification of embryos with a poor morphological score: a proposal to avoid embryo wastage. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2012;32(3):405–9. abstract.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rijnders M, Jansen CA. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(10):2869–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Racowsky C, Machtinger R. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(3):210–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ryan GL, Sparks AE, Sipe CS, Syrop CH, Dokras A, Van Voorhis BJ. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, Calderon G, Cohen J, Munné S. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(9):1954–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Scott Jr RT, Treff NR. Assessing the reproductive competence of individual embryos: a proposal for the validation of new “-omics” technologies. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):791–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):344–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shaw JM, Jones GM. Terminology associated with vitrification and other cryopreservation procedures for oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(6):583–605.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Styer AK, Wright DL, Wolkovich AM, Veiga C, Toth TL. Single-blastocyst transfer decreases twin gestation without affecting pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1702–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vajta G, Nagy ZP, Cobo A, Conceicao J, Yovich J. Vitrification in assisted reproduction: myths, mistakes, disbeliefs and confusion. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 3:1–7. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Valbuena D, Martin J, de Pablo JL, Remohi J, Pellicer A, Simon C. Increasing levels of estradiol are deleterious to embryonic implantation because they directly affect the embryo. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(5):962–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Vanderzwalmen P, Zech N, Greindl AJ, Ectors F, Lejeune B. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2006;34(9):760–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Vanderzwalmen P, Ectors F, Grobet L, Prapas Y, Panagiotidis Y, Vanderzwalmen S, et al. Aseptic vitrification of blastocysts from infertile patients, egg donors and after IVM. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(5):700–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Van Landuyt L, Stoop D, Verheyen G, Verpoest W, Camus M, Van de Velde H, et al. Outcome of closed blastocyst vitrification in relation to blastocyst quality: evaluation of 759 warming cycles in a single-embryo transfer policy. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(3):527–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(10):1115–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S, Zhang J, Heng BC, Huang M, et al. Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles–time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1691–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ziebe S, Lundin K, Loft A, Bergh C, Nyboe Andersen A, Selleskog U, et al. FISH analysis for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y in all blastomeres of IVF pre-embryos from 144 randomly selected donated human oocytes and impact on pre-embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(12):2575–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the rest of our IVF team who participated in the clinical work of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecology, CHU St Pierre, (Université Libre de Bruxelles), rue Haute 322, Brussels, 1000, Belgium

    Chloë Shaw-Jackson, Evelyne Bertrand, Bénédicte Becker, Jérôme Colin, Caroline Beaudoin-Chabot, Serge Rozenberg & Candice Autin

Authors
  1. Chloë Shaw-Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evelyne Bertrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bénédicte Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jérôme Colin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline Beaudoin-Chabot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Serge Rozenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Candice Autin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chloë Shaw-Jackson.

Additional information

Capsule

We extended the culture of cleavage stage embryos considered unsuitable for cryopreservation and found that good quality blastocysts could be produced with high pregnancy rates after warming.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shaw-Jackson, C., Bertrand, E., Becker, B. et al. Vitrification of blastocysts derived from fair to poor quality cleavage stage embryos can produce high pregnancy rates after warming. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 1035–1042 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0037-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0037-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation