A Study to Evaluate the Implantation and Clinical Pregnancy Rates in Patients Undergoing Sequential Frozen Day 3 Embryo and Day 5 Blastocyst Transfer
Muhammed Asif, Maheshwari, Asha S Vijay, Damodara KM Gowda
Keywords :
Clinical pregnancy rate, Embryo transfer, Sequential transfer
Citation Information :
Asif M, Maheshwari, Vijay AS, Gowda DK. A Study to Evaluate the Implantation and Clinical Pregnancy Rates in Patients Undergoing Sequential Frozen Day 3 Embryo and Day 5 Blastocyst Transfer. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2023; 14 (2):55-58.
Background: Sequential transfer is a technique in which cleavage stage embryo(s) and blastocyst(s) are transferred sequentially in the same cycle. It prevents the potential disadvantage of cycle cancellation due to the nonformation of a blastocyst. The present study is undertaken to evaluate the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in patients undergoing sequential transfer and to assess the success rates in different categories of patients.
Materials and methods: A retrospective multicentric case series study was done on patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles at GarbhaGudi IVF centers in Bengaluru. A total of 155 women had undergone frozen embryo sequential transfer of day 3 embryos and day 5 blastocysts. During frozen embryo transfer (ET), conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) downregulated HRT, and mild stimulation protocols were used to prepare the endometrium. Adequate luteal phase support was given for 14 days, and pregnancy was confirmed by doing serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).
Results: The majority underwent HRT (76.13%) protocol. The average endometrial thickness on the day of the hCG administration was 8.68 ± 1.13. The clinical pregnancy rate was 67.1 with 73.34% singletons, 22.86% twins, and 3.81% triplets. The study reported 57.14% ongoing pregnancies, 34.28% live births, and only 20% abortions.
Conclusion: Sequential transfer resulted in better clinical pregnancy and birth rates. It also had the advantage of blastocyst transfer without exposing the whole cycle to the risk of cancellation.
Tur-Kaspa I, Yuval Y, Bider D, et al. Difficult or repeated sequential embryo transfers do not adversely affect in-vitro fertilization pregnancy rates or outcome. Hum Reprod 1998;13(9):2452–2455. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.9.2452
Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978;2(8085):366. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92957-4
Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73(6):1155–1158. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00518-5
Kosasa TS, McNamee PI, Morton C, et al. Pregnancy rates after transfer of cryopreserved blastocysts cultured in a sequential media. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192(6):2035–2039. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.036
Dalal R, Mishra A, Pai HD, et al. A prospective trial comparing sequential day 3/day 5 transfer with cleavage stage transfer and blastocyst stage transfer. IVF Lite 2015;2(1):30–36. DOI: 10.4103/2348-2907.151972
Nadkarni PK, Nadkarni KM, Singh PP, et al. A comparative study of pregnancy outcome of sequential versus day 3 versus only blastocyst (day 6) transfer at a single IVF center over one year. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2015;4(6):2033. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20151262
Fang C, Huang R, Li TT, et al. Day-2 and day-3 sequential transfer improves pregnancy rate in patients with repeated IVF–embryo transfer failure: a retrospective case-control study. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;26(1):30–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.10.004
Wakuda K, Takakura K, Nakanishi K, et al. Embryo-dependent induction of embryo receptivity in the mouse endometrium. J Reprod Fertil 1999;115(2):315–324. DOI: 10.1530/jrf.0.1150315
Spandorfer SD, Soslow R, Clark R, et al. Histologic characteristics of the endometrium predicts success when utilizing autologous endometrial coculture in patients with IVF failure. J Assist Reprod Genet 2006;23(4):185–189. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-006-9034-4
Eyheremendy V, Raffo FG, Papayannis M, et al. Beneficial effect of autologous endometrial cell coculture in patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2010;93(3):769–773. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.060
Zhou L, Li R, Wang R, et al. Local injury to the endometrium in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles improves implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2008;89(5):1166–1176. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.064
Loutradis D, Drakakis P, Dallianidis K, et al. A double embryo transfer on days 2 and 4 or 5 improves pregnancy outcome in patients with good embryos but repeated failures in IVF or ICSI. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2004;31(1):63–66.
Almog B, Levin I, Wagman I, et al. Interval double transfer improves treatment success in patients with repeated IVF/ET failures. J Assist Reprod Genet 2008;25(8):353–357. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-008-9237-y
Abramovici H, Dirnfeld M, Weisman Z, et al. Pregnancies following the interval double-transfer technique in an in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer program. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1988;5(3):175–176. DOI: 10.1007/BF01131183
Tehraninejad ES, Raisi E, Ghaleh FB, et al. The sequential embryo transfer compared to blastocyst embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in patients with the three repeated consecutive IVF. A randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Endocrinol 2019;35(11):955–959. DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2019.1613639
Phillips SJ, Dean NL, Buckett WM, et al. Consecutive transfer of day 3 embryos and of day 5–6 blastocysts increases overall pregnancy rates associated with blastocyst culture. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003;20(11):461–464. DOI: 10.1023/b:jarg.0000006708.26464.23
Goto S, Takebayashi K, Shiotani M, et al. Effectiveness of 2-step (consecutive) embryo transfer. Comparison with cleavage-stage transfer. J Reprod Med 2003;48(5):370–374.
Urman B, Yakin K, Balaban B. Recurrent implantation failure in assisted reproduction: how to counsel and manage. A. General considerations and treatment options that may benefit the couple. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11(3):371–381. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60846-2
