Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thawing day 3 embryos and culturing to day 5 may be a better method for frozen embryo transfer

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

Abstract

Purpose

Does thawing cleavage embryos and culturing them for transfer as blastocysts improve pregnancy and perinatal outcomes compared to transferring thawed blastocysts?

Methods

Retrospective, observational cohort study performed at two assisted reproductive technology centers, 2014 to 2020. A total of 450 patients with 463 thawed embryo transfer cycles were divided into 2 groups according to the embryonic developmental stage at cryopreservation and transfer: 231 thawed blastocysts (day 5 group) and 232 thawed cleavage embryos that were cultured for 2 days and transferred as blastocysts (day 3–5 group). The two groups were compared for demographics, routine parameters of IVF treatment, pregnancy rates, and perinatal outcomes.

Results

Multivariable logistic regression analysis for ongoing pregnancy and delivery demonstrated that the day 3–5 group had a greater likelihood of achieving ongoing pregnancy and delivery compared to the day 5 group (OR 1.58, 95%CI 1.062–2.361, p = 0.024). Perinatal outcomes were comparable between the three groups.

Conclusion

Our results support culturing post-thaw cleavage embryos for 2 days and transferring them as blastocysts to increase chances of ongoing pregnancy and delivery.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available on request from the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Nagy ZP, Shapiro D, Chang CC. Vitrification of the human embryo: a more efficient and safer in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:241–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang A, Santistevan A, Hunter Cohn K, Copperman A, Nulsen J, Miller BT, et al. Freeze-only versus fresh embryo transfer in a multicenter matched cohort study: contribution of progesterone and maternal age to success rates. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:254-261.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.007 (Elsevier Inc).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roque M, Haahr T, Geber S, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:583–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyard J, Reignier A, Chtourou S, Lefebvre T, Barrière P, Fréour T. Should artificial shrinkage be performed prior to blastocyst vitrification? A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Hum Fertil. 2020;0(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2019.1701205 (Taylor & Francis).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Landuyt L, Polyzos NP, De Munck N, Blockeel C, Van De Velde H, Verheyen G. A prospective randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of artificial shrinkage (collapse) on the implantation potential of vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2509–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bashiri A, Halper KI, Orvieto R. Recurrent implantation failure-update overview on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and future directions. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16(1):18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1999;11(3):307–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dobson SJA, Lao MT, Michael E, Varghese AC, Jayaprakasan K. Effect of transfer of a poor quality embryo along with a top quality embryo on the outcome during fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(655):60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.010 (Elsevier Inc.).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Özgür K, Berkkanoğlu M, Bulut H, Isikli A, Coetzee K. Higher clinical pregnancy rates from frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers compared to fresh blastocyst transfers: A retrospective matched-cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1483–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rehman KS, Bukulmez O, Langley M, Carr BR, Nackley AC, Doody KM, et al. Late stages of embryo progression are a much better predictor of clinical pregnancy than early cleavage in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cycles with blastocyst-stage transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:1041–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016.

  13. Levi-Setti PE, Menduni F, Smeraldi A, Patrizio P, Morenghi E, Albani E. Artificial shrinkage of blastocysts prior to vitrification improves pregnancy outcome: analysis of 1028 consecutive warming cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:461–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hur YS, Park JH, Ryu EK, Yoon HJ, Yoon SH, Hur CY, et al. Effect of artificial shrinkage on clinical outcome in fresh blastocyst transfer cycles. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2011;38:87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Doyle JO, Richter KS, Lim J, Stillman RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ. Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:459-466.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.026 (Elsevier Inc).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Navah Jelin, MS, for statistical analyses and Faye Schreiber, MS, for editing the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Roni Rahav-Koren and Shmuel Inbar Equal contribution.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, 59 Tchernichovsky St, 4428164, Kfar Saba, Israel

    Roni Rahav-Koren, Shmuel Inbar, Netanella Miller, Amir Wiser, Yael Yagur, Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel, Adrian Shulman & Arie Berkowitz

  2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Roni Rahav-Koren, Shmuel Inbar, Netanella Miller, Amir Wiser, Yael Yagur, Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel, Adrian Shulman & Arie Berkowitz

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 9112102, Jerusalem, Israel

    Chen Berkowitz

  4. Assuta Medical Center, 75654, Rishon Letzion, Israel

    Arie Berkowitz

Authors
  1. Roni Rahav-Koren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shmuel Inbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Netanella Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amir Wiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yael Yagur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chen Berkowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Adrian Shulman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Arie Berkowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept and design: Arie Berkowitz, Adrian Shulman, Amir Wiser; acquisition of data: Roni Rahav-Koren, Arie Berkowitz, Shmuel Inbar, Yael Yagur, Chen Berkowitz, Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel; analysis and interpretation of data: Roni Rahav-Koren, Netanella Miller; drafting the manuscript: Roni Rahav-Koren, Netanella Miller; critical revision the manuscript: all authors. All authors approved the final version submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roni Rahav-Koren.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Rahav-Koren, R., Inbar, S., Miller, N. et al. Thawing day 3 embryos and culturing to day 5 may be a better method for frozen embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 2941–2946 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02321-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02321-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation