Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developmentally delayed cleavage-stage embryos maintain comparable implantation rates in frozen embryo transfers

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

Abstract

Purpose

In fresh IVF cycles, embryos reaching the eight-cell stage on day 3 of development are thought to have a higher chance of implantation than those reaching this stage on day 4. To determine whether this difference persists after cryopreservation, we compared pregnancy and implantation rates between frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles using delayed cleavage-stage embryos (cryopreserved day 4) and normal cleavage-stage embryos (cryopreserved day 3).

Methods

Participants underwent FET between 2008 and 2012 using embryos cryopreserved on either day 3 (n = 76) or day 4 (n = 48), depending on the length of time needed to achieve the eight-cell stage. All embryos, regardless of day of cryopreservation, were thawed and transferred on the 4th day of vaginal progesterone following endometrial preparation with oral estradiol. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient demographics and cycle outcomes.

Results

More women in the day 4 group had diminished ovarian reserve (44 vs 16 %, p = 0.003). Pregnancy outcomes in preceding fresh cycles were not different between the two groups. Pregnancy, implantation, and live birth rates following FET did not differ between the day 3 and day 4 groups.

Conclusions

This is the first study to address outcomes using day 3 versus day 4 cryopreserved embryos. Despite a higher prevalence of diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) in the day 4 group, delayed cleavage-stage embryos utilized in FET cycles performed as well as embryos growing at the normal rate, suggesting delayed embryo development does not affect embryo implantation as long as endometrial synchrony is maintained.

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

References

  1. Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305:707–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1851–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology National Data Summary. Available at https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0. Accessed on Jan 31, 2015.

  4. Rhenman A, Berglund L, Brodin T, Olovsson M, Milton K, Hadziosmanovic N, et al. Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:28–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Loendersloot L, van Wely M, van der Veen F, Bossuyt P, Repping S. Selection of embryos for transfer in IVF: ranking embryos based on their implantation potential using morphological scoring. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:222–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, Garello C, Gennarelli G, Revelli A, et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:548–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1970–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. El-Toukhy T, Wharf E, Walavalkar R, Singh A, Bolton V, Khalaf Y, et al. Delayed blastocyst development does not influence the outcome of frozen–thawed transfer cycles. BJOG. 2011;118:1551–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Levens ED, Whitcomb BW, Hennessy S, James AN, Yauger BJ, Larsena FW. Blastocyst development rate impacts outcome in cryopreserved blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:2138–43.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saadat P, Boostanfar R, Slater CC, Tourgeman DE, Stanczyk FZ, Paulson RJ. Accelerated endometrial maturation in the luteal phase of cycles utilizing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus antagonists. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:167–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhao P, Li M, Lian Y, Zheng X, Liu P, Qiao J. The clinical outcomes of day 3 4-cell embryos after extended in vitro culture. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(1):55–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, Room 534, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Heather Burks, Jennifer Buckbinder, Mary Francis-Hernandez, Karine Chung, Kristin Bendikson & Richard Paulson

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Kaiser Permanente, 4900 W. Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA

    Sami Jabara

Authors
  1. Heather Burks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Buckbinder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Francis-Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karine Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sami Jabara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kristin Bendikson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Richard Paulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Burks.

Additional information

Capsule

Developmentally delayed cleavage-stage embryos that reach the eight-cell stage or better by day 4 have similar outcomes in frozen cycles to normal embryos when synchronized to endometrial development.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burks, H., Buckbinder, J., Francis-Hernandez, M. et al. Developmentally delayed cleavage-stage embryos maintain comparable implantation rates in frozen embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 1477–1481 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0561-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0561-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation