Optimal embryo transfer strategy in poor response may include freeze-all
- PMID: 27832397
- PMCID: PMC5330980
- DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0825-y
Optimal embryo transfer strategy in poor response may include freeze-all
Abstract
Purpose: In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the best embryo transfer strategy in ICSI cycles with ≤4 oocytes collected at oocyte retrieval.
Methods: Women who underwent antagonist co-treatment COS for ICSI treatment between January 2010 and December 2015 at a private ART clinic (N = 2263). Eight hundred seventy-nine women (group 1) had ≤4 oocytes collected at oocyte retrieval, of whom 645 (group A) had cleavage stage embryo transfer (ET), and 234 (group B) had blastocyst ET. One thousand three hundred eighty-four women (group 2) had 10-15 oocytes collected at oocyte retrieval, of whom 676 (group C) had cleavage stage ET, and 708 women (group D) had blastocyst ET. Blastocyst vitrification was performed using the Cryotop method and FET using artificial cycles.
Results: In group 1, the cancellation rate was significantly lower in group A (25.2 vs 38 %). The pregnancy rate (PR), clinical PR, implantation rate (IR), and live birth rate (LBR) per ET and per oocyte retrieval were all lower in group A. The clinical PR, IR, and LBR per ET of vitrified-warmed blastocyst ET were significantly the highest. In group 2, the cycle cancellation rate was significantly lower in group C (3.5 vs 13.4 %). The PR, clinical PR, and IR per ET and per oocyte retrieval were all lower in group C. The LBR per ET was significantly lower, but the LBR per oocyte retrieval was not significantly lower in group C. Again, the PR, clinical PR, and IR per ET of vitrified-warmed blastocyst ET were significantly the highest.
Conclusions: Day 5 ET strategy has been reserved for normal or high responders. The improved pregnancy outcomes from blastocyst culture and cryopreservation may challenge ART to extend this benefit to poor responders.
Keywords: Blastocyst culture; Diminished ovarian reserve; Freeze-all; Poor response.
Conflict of interest statement
Funding
This study received no financial support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Ethical approval
All participants in this study signed an informed consent (institutional
Study data
The study data was partly presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the ASRM, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 17 to 21 October 2015.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources