Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cell number considerations for blastocyst transfer in younger patients

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

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the role of the cell number at day 3 in blastocyst selection.

Design

Observational, retrospective, single-center clinical study.

Patient(s)

In part 1, 1211 single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (SVBT) cycles were identified and reviewed. All the cycles were conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and the first embryo transfer cycles. Most of patients had a risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and were young. In part 2, 864 IVF-derived blastocysts from 292 infertile couples underwent trophectoderm (TE) biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A).

Intervention(s)

No patient intervention.

Main outcome measure(s)

The first part was an analysis of the correlation between the cell number at day 3 and live birth rate (LBR) after SVBT, and the second part was an analysis of the correlation between the cell number at day 3 and euploid rate (ER) of blastocysts.

Result(s)

In part 1, after correcting for the effects of other confounders, the cell number at day 3 had no significant effect on the LBR (OR 1.001, 95% CI 0.938–1.068). In part 2, after correcting for the effects of other confounders, the cell number at day 3 had no significant effect on the ER (OR 0.960, 95% CI 0.866–1.063).

Conclusion(s)

When the vitrified-warmed blastocysts obtained by conventional IVF are transferred into young patients, the cell number at day 3 is not a strong predictor of the LBR. In addition, the cell number at day 3 is not a strong predictor of ER of IVF-derived blastocysts too.

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. Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:722–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kovacic B, Vlaisavljevic V, Reljic M, Cizek-Sajko M. Developmental capacity of different morphological types of day 5 human morulae and blastocysts. Reprod BioMed Online. 2004;8:687–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3289–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Van den Abbeel E, Balaban B, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Cuesta MJ, Klein BM, et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27:353–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wei D, Liu JY, Sun Y, Shi Y, Zhang B, Liu JQ, et al. Frozen versus fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulatory women: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019.

  6. Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Prediction of live birth in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles by pre-freeze and post-thaw morphology. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1199–209.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhao J, Yan Y, Huang X, Sun L, Li Y. Blastocoele expansion: an important parameter for predicting clinical success pregnancy after frozen-warmed blastocysts transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. workshop Ic. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Laureys I, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. Calculating the implantation potential of day 3 embryos in women younger than 38 years of age: a new model. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:326–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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;87:534–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van der Heijden GW, van den Berg IM, Baart EB, Derijck AA, Martini E, de Boer P. Parental origin of chromatin in human monopronuclear zygotes revealed by asymmetric histone methylation patterns, differs between IVF and ICSI. Mol Reprod Dev. 2009;76:101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Li M, Lin S, Chen Y, Zhu J, Liu P, Qiao J. Value of transferring embryos that show no evidence of fertilization at the time of fertilization assessment. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:607–11 e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bradley CK, Traversa MV, Hobson N, Gee AJ, McArthur SJ. Clinical use of monopronucleated zygotes following blastocyst culture and preimplantation genetic screening, including verification of biparental chromosome inheritance. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34:567–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Itoi F, Asano Y, Shimizu M, Honnma H, Murata Y. Birth of nine normal healthy babies following transfer of blastocysts derived from human single-pronucleate zygotes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1401–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hondo S, Arichi A, Muramatsu H, Omura N, Ito K, Komine H, et al. Clinical outcomes of transfer of frozen and thawed single blastocysts derived from nonpronuclear and monopronuclear zygotes. Reprod Med Biol. 2019;18:278–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Racowsky C, Combelles CM, Nureddin A, Pan Y, Finn A, Miles L, et al. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reprod BioMed Online. 2003;6:323–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Della Ragione T, Verheyen G, Papanikolaou EG, Van Landuyt L, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. Developmental stage on day-5 and fragmentation rate on day-3 can influence the implantation potential of top-quality blastocysts in IVF cycles with single embryo transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Motato Y, de los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril 2016;105:376–384 e9.

  19. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mizobe Y, Oya N, Iwakiri R, Yoshida N, Sato Y, Miyoshi K, et al. Effects of early cleavage patterns of human embryos on subsequent in vitro development and implantation. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:348–53 e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuwayama M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos: the Cryotop method. Theriogenology. 2007;67:73–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hur YS, Ryu EK, Song SH, Yoon SH, Lim KS, Lee WD, et al. A retrospective study of single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2016;43:106–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ji J, Liu Y, Tong XH, Luo L, Ma J, Chen Z. The optimum number of oocytes in IVF treatment: an analysis of 2455 cycles in China. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2728–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, Casciani V, Scarselli F, et al. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2245–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kroener LL, Ambartsumyan G, Pisarska MD, Briton-Jones C, Surrey M, Hill D. Increased blastomere number in cleavage-stage embryos is associated with higher aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:694–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:571–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee C, Tee ST, Singh S, Khoo G. Aneuploidy rate in cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16:S-37-S.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:624–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen X, Zhang J, Wu X, Cao S, Zhou L, Wang Y, et al. Trophectoderm morphology predicts outcomes of pregnancy in vitrified-warmed single-blastocyst transfer cycle in a Chinese population. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1475–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ozgur K, Bulut H, Berkkanoglu M, Donmez L, Coetzee K. Prediction of live birth and cumulative live birth rates in freeze-all-IVF treatment of a general population. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:685–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Munne S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;12:234–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yoshida IH, Santos M, Berton CZ, Chiarella CL, Tanada MS, E BC et al. Can trophectoderm morphology act as a predictor for euploidy? JBRA Assist Reprod 2018;22:113–115.

  33. Destouni A, Dimitriadou E, Masset H, Debrock S, Melotte C, Van Den Bogaert K, et al. Genome-wide haplotyping embryos developing from 0PN and 1PN zygotes increases transferrable embryos in PGT-M. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:2302–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ferreux L, Bourdon M, Sallem A, Santulli P, Barraud-Lange V, Le Foll N, et al. Live birth rate following frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer is higher with blastocysts expanded on day 5 than on day 6. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:390–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ roles

All of the authors (Zhiren Liu, Mingting Jiang, Linyun He, and Yun Liu) made substantial contributions to the conception of the study and to the design or acquisition of the data, as well as to the analysis and interpretation of the data. Z.L, M.J, and Y.L drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content. All of the authors gave final approval of the version to be published.

Funding

This work was supported by the Fujian Provincial Natural Science Foundation (project numbers 2016J01589 and 2011J01240)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 900 Hospital of the Joint Logistics Team, Fuzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Zhiren Liu, Linyun He & Yun Liu

  2. Institute for Translational Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Mingting Jiang

Authors
  1. Zhiren Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mingting Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linyun He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Z., Jiang, M., He, L. et al. Cell number considerations for blastocyst transfer in younger patients. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 619–627 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01681-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01681-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation