Pregnancy and birth outcomes following fresh or vitrified embryo transfer according to blastocyst morphology and expansion stage, and culturing strategy for delayed development.

STUDY QUESTION How do live birth rates (LBRs), following fresh and vitrified/warmed embryo transfer, compare according to morphological grade, developmental stage and culturing strategy of human blastocysts in vitro? SUMMARY ANSWER Equivalent LBRs were obtained after fresh embryo transfer and after vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of blastocysts of top or non-top quality, while vitrification after prolonged embryo culture of blastocysts with delayed development had a positive impact on LBR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Blastocyst morphology correlates with clinical outcome; however, few data are available on vitrified/warmed embryo transfer using non-top quality blastocysts. The aim of this study was to determine clinical outcomes of non-top quality blastocysts and blastocysts with delayed development that underwent vitrified/warmed embryo transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This retrospective, single-centre study (conducted January 2009 to June 2013) compared 1010 fresh embryo transfer and 1270 vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of blastocysts originating from the same stimulation cycle. Furthermore, 636 fresh embryo transfers and 304 vitrified/warmed embryo transfer after delayed expansion or blastulation in the same period were also analysed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Clinical outcomes after fresh and vitrified/warmed embryo transfer according to blastocyst morphology were compared in both groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Similar LBRs after fresh embryo transfer or after vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of top or non-top quality blastocysts were observed. A statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes was obtained after vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of Day 5 embryos with delayed expansion or blastulation when applying prolonged culture. Our study suggests that vitrification of non-top quality blastocysts as well as delayed cavitating and blastulating Day 5 embryos should be considered in autologous IVF cycles. LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION Given that the present retrospective study used aseptic vitrification of blastocysts, the results, particularly the survival rates, may not be fully applicable to other vitrification protocols. The retrospective nature of the study has to be mentioned. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Restriction of vitrification to top quality blastocysts may result in discarding potentially viable embryos. STUDY FUNDING AND COMPETING INTERESTS This study was not externally funded. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

[1]  E. Levens,et al.  Single vitrified blastocyst transfer maximizes liveborn children per embryo while minimizing preterm birth. , 2015, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  S. Daneshmand,et al.  Freeze-all can be a superior therapy to another fresh cycle in patients with prior fresh blastocyst implantation failure. , 2014, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[3]  M. Mainigi,et al.  Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale. , 2014, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  K. Barnhart.  Introduction: are we ready to eliminate the transfer of fresh embryos in in vitro fertilization? , 2014, Fertility and sterility.

[5]  Y. Morimoto,et al.  Possible selection of viable human blastocysts after vitrification by monitoring morphological changes , 2014, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[6]  M. Schuff,et al.  Transfer of blastocysts with deviant morphological and morphokinetic parameters at early stages of in-vitro development: a case series. , 2014, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[7]  P. Patrizio,et al.  Fresh transfer outcome predicts the success of a subsequent frozen transfer utilizing blastocysts of the same cohort. , 2014, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[8]  S. Ziebe,et al.  Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. , 2013, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[9]  Samantha Duffy,et al.  Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. , 2013, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[10]  B. Wirleitner,et al.  Blastocyst transfer after aseptic vitrification of zygotes: an approach to overcome an impaired uterine environment. , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[11]  B. Wirleitner,et al.  Effects of embryo transfer quality on pregnancy and live birth delivery rates , 2012, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[12]  M. Wikland,et al.  Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[13]  B. Kovačič,et al.  Prediction of human blastocyst development from morulas with delayed and/or incomplete compaction. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  T. Kadowaki,et al.  Prediction of pregnancy rate by blastocyst morphological score and age, based on 1,488 single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer cycles. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[15]  D. Wells,et al.  Aneuploidy in the Human Blastocyst , 2011, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[16]  V. Moragianni,et al.  Cumulative live-birth rates after assisted reproductive technology , 2010, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[17]  P. Vanderzwalmen,et al.  Aseptic vitrification of blastocysts from infertile patients, egg donors and after IVM. , 2009, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[18]  P. Vanderzwalmen,et al.  Prospective evaluation of the optimal time for selecting a single embryo for transfer: day 3 versus day 5. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  K. Richter,et al.  A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[20]  D. Gardner,et al.  Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[21]  O. Shebl,et al.  Morphology of vitrified/warmed day-5 embryos predicts rates of implantation, pregnancy and live birth. , 2009, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[22]  S. Daneshmand,et al.  Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of day 5 or day 6 blastocysts may reflect differences in embryo-endometrium synchrony. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[23]  Bernard Lejeune,et al.  Blastocyst development after sperm selection at high magnification is associated with size and number of nuclear vacuoles. , 2008, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[24]  H. Tournaye,et al.  Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2008 .

[25]  M. Mandiola,et al.  Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. , 2005, Fertility and sterility.

[26]  Dk Gardner,et al.  In-vitro culture of human blastocysts , 1999 .