Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis

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

Abstract

Objective

This systematic review sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of vitrification at the cleavage stage and blastocyst stage for embryo transfer in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Methods

We searched for related comparative studies published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2017. The primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and embryo implantation rate (IR). Secondary outcomes were multiple pregnancy rate (MPR), miscarriage rate (MR), live birth rate (LBR), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR). The Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model and random effects model were used to analyze the summary risks ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Eight studies with more than 6590 cycles were included in our meta-analysis. Seven studies were observational retrospective comparative studies. One was a prospective study. Overall, the current study summarizes information from 6590 vitrification warming cycles (cleavage stage n = 4594; blastocysts n = 1996). There was no difference in the primary outcome clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.90–1.04; fixed effects model; I 2 = 21%), whereas vitrified blastocyst transfer was significantly superior to vitrified cleavage-stage embryo transfer regarding the implantation rate (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74–0.97; random effects model; I 2 = 43). Regarding the secondary outcomes, no differences were found in the multiple pregnancy rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.79–1.82; fixed effects model; I 2 = 22), live birth rate (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.98–1.16; fixed effects model; I 2 = 0), and ongoing pregnancy rate (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.92–1.120; fixed effects model; I 2 = 0), whereas a higher miscarriage rate was observed with vitrified blastocyst transfer (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45–0.93; random effects model; I 2 = 23).

Conclusion

In summary, this meta-analysis shows that vitrification at any stage has no detrimental effect on clinical outcome. Blastocyst transfer will still remain a favorable and promising option in ART. Due to the small sample evaluated in the pool of included studies, large-scale, prospective, and randomized controlled trials are required to determine if these small effects are clinically relevant.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1998;3(305):707–9.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Li Z, et al. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2794–801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wikland M, et al. Obstetric outcomes after transfer of vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1699–707.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:19–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu HY, et al. Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1371–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which one is better? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:270–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, et al. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(6):347–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Balaban B, 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;23:1976–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rall WF, Fahy GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at -196 C by vitrification. Nature. 1985;313:573–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wong YY, Wong YK. Phasing-in of vitrification into routine practice: why, how, and what. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17:119–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Belva F, et al. Neonatal health including congenital malformation risk of 1072 children born after vitrified embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016;10:1093.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cobo A, et al. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1138–1146.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilding MG, et al. Human cleavage-stage embryo vitrification is comparable to slowrate cryopreservation in cycles of assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:549–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakashima A, et al. Optimization of a novel nylon mesh container for human embryo ultrarapid vitrification. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:24052410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schoolcraft WB, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1700–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raju GA, et al. Vitrification of human early cavitating and deflated expanded blastocysts: clinical outcome of 474 cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:523–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Vanderzwalmen P, et al. Aseptic vitrification of blastocysts from infertile patients, egg donors and after IVM. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;19:700–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Landuyt L, 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;26:527–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacobsen IA, Pegg DE, et al. Effect of cooling and warming rate on glycerolized rabbit kidneys. Cryobiology. 1984;21:637–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pegg DE. Ice crystals in tissues and organs. In: Pegg DE, Karow Jr AM, editors. The biophysics of organ preservation. New York: Plenum; 1987. p. 117–40.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Rubinsky B, Pegg ED. A mathematical model for the freezing process in biological tissue. Proc R Soc Lond. 1988;234:343–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. De Vos A, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(11):2442–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Desai N, et al. What is the optimal stage for embryo vitrification-a comparison of embryo survival and clinical outcomes with day 3 cleavage versus blastocyst stage vitrification. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):S110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Desai N, et al. The new Rapid-i carrier is an effective system for human embryo vitrification at both the blastocyst and cleavage stage. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11(44):2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lee JH, et al. Effect of day-3 embryo and day-5 blastocyst stage at vitrification on clinical outcome of cryopreserved-embryo transfer cycles. Stockholm: Annual Meeting of ESHRE; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shaw SF. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:177–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sugiyama R, et al. Clinical outcomes resulting from the transfer of vitrified human embryos using a new device for cryopreservation (plastic blade). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(4):161–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Tong GQ, et al. Clinical outcome of fresh and vitrified-warmed blastocyst and cleavage-stage embryo transfers in ethnic Chinese ART patients. J Ovarian Res. 2012;5:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kamath M, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes following vitrified warmed day 5/6 blastocyst transfers using solid surface methodology with fresh blastocyst transfers. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6(1):59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhu D, 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 

  33. Han AR, et al. Blastocyst transfer in frozen-thawed cycles. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2012;39(3):114–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Blake D, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology (Review). Cochrane Libr. 2011;10

  35. Papanikolaou EG, et al. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1139–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. SILLS ES, Palermo DG. Human blastocyst culture in IVF: current laboratory applications in reproductive medicine practice. Morphol Embryol. 2010;51(3):441–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Fanchin R, et al. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1115–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ata B, et al. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related with the number of embryos generated. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;24:614–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carvalho BR, et al. Embryo stage of development is not decisive for reproductive outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21(1):23–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B. Implantation in assisted reproduction: a look at endometrial receptivity. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27:530–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  42. Berkkanoglu M, et al. Optimal embryo transfer strategy in poor response may include freeze-all. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;34(1):79–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Marek D, et al. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1035e40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Papanikolaou EG, et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:91e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S89e92.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dar S, et al. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus day 3 embryo transfer: Canadian ART Register (CARTR) analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:924e8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74:599e609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Chang HJ, et al. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2381e90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Blake D, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Collab. 2005;4:CD002118.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hreinsson J, et al. Embryo transfer is equally effective at cleavage stage and blastocyst stage: a randomized prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117(2):194–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Seki S, Mazur P. The dominance of warming rate over cooling rate in the survival of mouse oocytes subjected to a vitrification procedure. Cryobiology. 2009;59:75–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Desai N, et al. Artificial collapse of blastocysts before vitrification: mechanical vs. laser technique and effect on survival, cell number, and cell death in early and expanded blastocysts. Biopreserv Biobank. 2008;6:181–90.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Martins WP, et al. Assisted hatching of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(4):438–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhu L, et al. Blastocyst culture and cryopreservation to optimize clinical outcomes of warming cycles. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27(2):154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Feng GX, et al. Comparable clinical outcomes and live births after single vitrified–warmed and fresh blastocyst transfer. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25:466–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ku P-Y, et al. Comparison of the clinical outcomes between fresh blastocyst and vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(12):1353–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Edi-Osagie E, Hooper L, Seif MW. The impact of assisted hatching on live birth rates and outcomes of assisted conception: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(9):1828–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Maheshwari A, Bhattacharya S. Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod. 2013;28:6–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Barsky M, et al. Are perinatal outcomes affected by blastocyst vitrification and warming? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:603.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to LiuMing Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeng, M., Su, S. & Li, L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 127–134 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1040-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1040-1

Keywords

Navigation