Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical pregnancy rate following frozen embryo transfer is higher with blastocysts vitrified on day 5 than on day 6

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the pregnancy rates between good quality blastocysts vitrified on day 6 versus blastocysts vitrified on day 5 after fertilization.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 791 freeze-thaw cycles of blastocysts vitrified either on day 5 or on day 6 and transferred between January 2012 and October 2015. Five hundred and thirty-seven cycles included blastocysts vitrified on day 5, and 254 cycles included blastocysts vitrified on day 6.

Results

The age of the patients and the proportion of embryos that survived the thawing process were comparable between the two groups. More good quality embryos were transferred in the group in which blastocysts were vitrified on day 6 (1.2 vs. 1.3, p = 0.005), but the clinical pregnancy rate (44 vs. 33 %, p = 0.002) and the ongoing pregnancy rate (41 vs. 28 %, p < 0.001) were higher in the group in which blastocysts were vitrified on day 5. Multivariate regression analysis adjusting for patient’s age, number of good quality embryos transferred (≥3BB), and treatment protocol demonstrated that the day 6 vitrified group had a significantly lower clinical pregnancy rate compared to the day 5 vitrified group (OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.38–0.76).

Conclusions

The clinical pregnancy rate following frozen embryo transfer is significantly lower with blastocysts vitrified on day 6 compared to blastocysts vitrified on day 5.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shapiro BS et al. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):389–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shapiro BS et al. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro BS et al. 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 

  4. Ozgur K et al. Perinatal outcomes after fresh versus vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer: retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(4):899–907. e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thurin A et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(23):2392–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Le Lannou D et al. Contribution of embryo cryopreservation to elective single embryo transfer in IVF-ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(3):368–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karaki RZ et al. Blastocyst culture and transfer: a step toward improved in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(1):114–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schroder AK et al. Cumulative pregnancy rates and drop-out rates in a German IVF programme: 4102 cycles in 2130 patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(5):600–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Glujovsky D et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schwarzler P et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(9):2097–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Barrenetxea G 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, editor. Towards reproductive certainty. Carnforth: Parthenon; 1999. p. 378–88.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Elgindy E, Elsedeek MS. Day 5 expanded blastocysts transferred on same day have comparable outcome to those left for more extended culture and transferred on day 6. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(10):1111–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hashimoto S et al. Growth retardation in human blastocysts increases the incidence of abnormal spindles and decreases implantation potential after vitrification. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1528–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shapiro BS 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liebermann J, Tucker MJ. Comparison of vitrification and conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(1):20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Levens ED et al. Blastocyst development rate impacts outcome in cryopreserved blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(6):2138–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Behr B et al. Factors relating to a successful cryopreserved blastocyst transfer program. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(4):697–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Richter KS et al. Cryopreserved embryo transfers suggest that endometrial receptivity may contribute to reduced success rates of later developing embryos. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(4):862–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sunkara SK et al. The influence of delayed blastocyst formation on the outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(8):1906–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kroener L et al. The effect of timing of embryonic progression on chromosomal abnormality. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(4):876–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Capalbo A 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor TH 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jigal Haas.

Additional information

Capsule The clinical pregnancy rate following frozen embryo transfer is significantly lower with blastocysts vitrified on day 6 compared to blastocysts vitrified on day 5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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 33, 1553–1557 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0818-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0818-x

Keywords

Navigation