A standardized training allows achieving similar clinical pregnancy rates per top-quality euploid blastocyst transfer across operators
- PMID: 39841344
- PMCID: PMC11950462
- DOI: 10.1007/s10815-025-03396-7
A standardized training allows achieving similar clinical pregnancy rates per top-quality euploid blastocyst transfer across operators
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of different embryo transfer (ET) operators in a strictly controlled scenario minimizing potential confounders.
Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed vitrified-warmed single euploid top-quality day-5 blastocyst transfers performed in non-obese women at the same IVF center by four equally trained clinicians using a standardized ET technique. These strict inclusion criteria allowed excluding all main confounders on the primary study outcome, namely clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per ET across different operators. Endometrial preparation protocol, maternal age at transfer, parity, and the embryologist involved were assessed as putative further confounders.
Results: Out of 8663 ETs performed between January 2013 and December 2021, 421 first single euploid top-quality blastocyst transfers were included. No significant difference in ET outcomes was observed among clinicians. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed no association between ET operators and CPR. The experience-defined as the sequential number of previous ETs conducted-did not involve any increase in the CPR.
Conclusions: The ET operator does not affect ET outcomes when subject to the same training and adopting a standardized ET protocol. As the performance does not increase with experience, the initial training is crucial to standardize the procedure across clinicians. In this regard, the CPR per euploid transfer can be considered a valuable Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for quality control purposes. Larger studies are required to build a consensus on competence and benchmark values to achieve.
Keywords: Embryo transfer; Euploid blastocyst; Key performance indicators; Operator performance; Quality control.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval: Ethic committee approval was obtained for the retrospective analysis of pseudonymized data aimed at identifying patients’, cycles’, or embryos’ features associated with IVF efficacy and/or efficiency. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
A randomized controlled trial comparing embryo vitrification with slush nitrogen to liquid nitrogen in women undergoing frozen embryo transfer: embryology and clinical outcomes.Hum Reprod. 2025 Mar 1;40(3):426-433. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaf003. Hum Reprod. 2025. PMID: 39836897 Clinical Trial.
-
Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 19;5(5):CD002118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 35588094 Free PMC article.
-
Intrauterine administration of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 20;(5):CD011537. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011537.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 20;10:CD011537. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011537.pub3. PMID: 27195724 Updated.
-
Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance.Hum Reprod Update. 2017 Mar 1;23(2):139-155. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw038. Hum Reprod Update. 2017. PMID: 27827818 Free PMC article.
-
Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 14;12(12):CD004378. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004378.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27976360 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org, Penzias A, Bendikson K, Butts S, Coutifaris C, Falcone T, et al. ASRM standard embryo transfer protocol template: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2017;107:897–900. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.108. - PubMed
-
- Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Performing the embryo transfer: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2017;107:882–96. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.025. - PubMed
-
- Karande VC, Morris R, Chapman C, Rinehart J, Gleicher N. Impact of the “physician factor” on pregnancy rates in a large assisted reproductive technology program: do too many cooks spoil the broth? Fertil Steril. 1999;71:1001–9. 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00139-9. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials