Improvement of Pregnancy Outcome by Extending Embryo Culture in IVF-ET During Clinical Application

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2017 Nov 11

PMID 29124461

Citations 6

Authors

Xiaopeng Zhao

Binbin Ma

Shaokang Mo

Lu Ma

Fei Chang

Liyuan Zhang

Fang Xu

Ling Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the application value of the extended embryo culture for 7-8 h in day 3 morning during IVF-ET process.

Methods: Embryos were retrospectively assessed during 08:00-09:00 on the morning of day 3 in the control group, and were assessed once again at 16:00 in the afternoon in the extended culture (EC) group. The embryos with good developmental potential were preferentially selected to transfer. The cumulative pregnancy outcomes were analyzed in one oocyte retrieval cycle.

Results: Similar proportions were found in the rates of cumulative clinical pregnancy, cumulative live birth, and the perinatal/neonatal outcomes per oocyte retrieval cycle (P > 0.05). But higher total clinical pregnancy rate, higher total implantation rate, and lower total abortion rate were obtained in the EC group (P < 0.05). After EC, 53.58% of the embryos were able to continue to develop. The transferred embryos were mainly composed of ≥ 8-cell embryos (75.90%) in the EC group and ≤ 8-cell embryos (82.92%) in the control group. Interestingly, the implantation rates were increasingly improved with the increasing blastomere number up to 56.31% at the morula stage in the EC group, while they were limited to 32.33% at 8-cell stage in the control group.

Conclusions: The extended culture of day 3 embryos for 7-8 h not only reduced the risk of IVF-ET treatment compared to blastocyst culture through another 2-3 days, but also improved the clinical outcomes and the efficiency of every transferred cycle and every transferred embryo.

Citing Articles

DTLR-CS: Deep tensor low rank channel cross fusion neural network for reproductive cell segmentation.

Zhao X, Wang J, Wang J, Hong R, Shen T, Liu Y PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0294727.

PMID: 38032913 PMC: 10688749. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294727.

Nomogram to predict FSH starting dose in poor ovarian response women in progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol.

Wu S, Li Y, Wu G, Wu H BMC Womens Health. 2023; 23(1):202.

PMID: 37118751 PMC: 10148485. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02327-x.

Clinical Application of Double Ovulation Stimulation in Patients with Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Asynchronous Follicular Development Undergoing Assisted Reproduction Technology.

Yang Y, Zhang M, Mu S, Guo X, Wang H, Tang Z Curr Med Sci. 2023; 43(2):304-312.

PMID: 36913110 DOI: 10.1007/s11596-022-2687-0.

Dynamics and clinical relevance of maternal mRNA clearance during the oocyte-to-embryo transition in humans.

Sha Q, Zheng W, Wu Y, Li S, Guo L, Zhang S Nat Commun. 2020; 11(1):4917.

PMID: 33004802 PMC: 7530992. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18680-6.

Pre-Implantation Mouse Embryos Cultured In Vitro under Different Oxygen Concentrations Show Altered Ultrastructures.

Belli M, Rinaudo P, Palmerini M, Ruggeri E, Antonouli S, Nottola S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(10).

PMID: 32413976 PMC: 7277391. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103384.

References

Desai N, Goldstein J, Rowland D, Goldfarb J . Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(10):2190-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.10.2190. View

Fenwick J, Platteau P, Murdoch A, Herbert M . Time from insemination to first cleavage predicts developmental competence of human preimplantation embryos in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(2):407-12. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.2.407. View

Paternot G, Wetzels A, Thonon F, Vansteenbrugge A, Willemen D, Devroe J . Intra- and interobserver analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos during an IVF procedure: a multicentre study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011; 9:127. PMC: 3181205. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-9-127. View

Papanikolaou E, Kolibianakis E, Tournaye H, Venetis C, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B . Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2007; 23(1):91-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem339. View

Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A . Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; (7):CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4. View

Botros L, Sakkas D, Seli E . Metabolomics and its application for non-invasive embryo assessment in IVF. Mol Hum Reprod. 2009; 14(12):679-90. PMC: 2639446. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gan066. View

Shi W, Xue X, Zhang S, Zhao W, Liu S, Zhou H . Perinatal and neonatal outcomes of 494 babies delivered from 972 vitrified embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97(6):1338-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.051. View

Shimoda Y, Kumagai J, Anzai M, Kabashima K, Togashi K, Miura Y . Time-lapse monitoring reveals that vitrification increases the frequency of contraction during the pre-hatching stage in mouse embryos. J Reprod Dev. 2016; 62(2):187-93. PMC: 4848576. DOI: 10.1262/jrd.2015-150. View

Martins W, Nastri C, Rienzi L, van der Poel S, Gracia C, Racowsky C . Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 49(5):583-591. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17327. View

10.

Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar A, Alvarez Sedo C, Blake D . Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; (6):CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5. View

11.

Alikani M, Calderon G, Tomkin G, Garrisi J, Kokot M, Cohen J . Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(12):2634-43. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.12.2634. View

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. 2014; 32(1):55-60. PMC: 4294877. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-014-0361-6. View

13.

Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S . Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 1988; 332(6163):459-61. DOI: 10.1038/332459a0. View

14.

Blake D, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Proctor M . Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (4):CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub3. View

15.

Gardner D, Balaban B . Assessment of human embryo development using morphological criteria in an era of time-lapse, algorithms and 'OMICS': is looking good still important?. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016; 22(10):704-718. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaw057. View

16.

Cummins J, Breen T, Harrison K, Shaw J, Wilson L, Hennessey J . A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1986; 3(5):284-95. DOI: 10.1007/BF01133388. View

17.

Gardner D, Lane M, Schoolcraft W . Physiology and culture of the human blastocyst. J Reprod Immunol. 2002; 55(1-2):85-100. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0378(01)00136-x. View

18.

Assou S, Boumela I, Haouzi D, Anahory T, Dechaud H, De Vos J . Dynamic changes in gene expression during human early embryo development: from fundamental aspects to clinical applications. Hum Reprod Update. 2010; 17(2):272-90. PMC: 3189516. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmq036. View

19.

Kroener L, Ambartsumyan G, Pisarska M, Briton-Jones C, Surrey M, Hill D . Increased blastomere number in cleavage-stage embryos is associated with higher aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(3):694-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.090. View

20.

Wells D, Bermudez M, Steuerwald N, Thornhill A, Walker D, Malter H . Expression of genes regulating chromosome segregation, the cell cycle and apoptosis during human preimplantation development. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20(5):1339-48. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh778. View