Abstract
Supporting Institution
yok
Project Number
yok
References
- Lehmann P, Velez MP, Saumet J, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): a reliable biomarker of oocyte quality in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 493–8.
- Papanikolaou EG, Fatemi H, Venetis C, et al. Monozygotic twinning is not increased after single blastocyst transfer compared with single cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 592-7.
- Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren K-G, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 1680-3.
- Kokkali G, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C, et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of β-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Human Reprod 2007; 22: 1443-9.
- Mangalraj AM, Muthukumar K, Aleyamma T, Kamath MS, George K. Blastocyst stage transfer vs cleavage stage embryo transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci 2009; 2: 23-6.
- Milki AA, Jun SH, Hinckley MD, Behr B, Giudice LC, Westphal LM. Incidence of monozygotic twinning with blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage-stage transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 503-6.
- Barrenetxea G, de Larruzea AL, Ganzabal T, Jiménez R, Carbonero K, Mandiola M. Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril 2005; 83: 49-53.
- Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2381-90.
- Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman LR, Austin C, Goldberg J, Falcone T. Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12: 1-10.
- Jones GM, Trounson AO, Gardner DK, Kausche A, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Evolution of a culture protocol for successful blastocyst development and pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 169-77.
- Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, et al. Inhibin B and anti-mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients?. BJOG 2004; 111: 1248–53.
- La Marca A, Ferraretti AP, Palermo R, et al. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol 2016; 32: 1–5.
- Nikmard F, Aflatoonian B, Hosseini E, et al. A comparative study on the results of agonist and antagonist protocols based on serum AMH levels in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Int J Reprod Biomed 2016; 14: 769-76.
- Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 6: CD002118.
- Ishihara O, Kuwahara A, Saitoh H. Frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer reduces ectopic pregnancy risk: an analysis of single embryo transfer cycles in Japan. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1966-9.
- Martins W, Nastri C, Rienzi L, Van Der Poel S, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 2561-9.
- Coskun S, Hollanders J, Al-Hassan S, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Mayman H, Jaroudi K. Day 5 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a controlled randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1947-52.
- Levron J, Shulman A, Bider D, Seidman D, Levin T, Dor J. A prospective randomized study comparing day 3 with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 1300-1.
- Lundqvist M, Rova K, Simberg N, Lundkvist Ö. Embryo transfer after 2 or 5 days of IVF culture: a retrospective comparison. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scand 2002; 81: 126-32.
- Frattarelli JL, Leondires MP, McKeeby JL, Miller BT, Segars JH. Blastocyst transfer decreases multiple pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 228-30.
- Van der Auwera I, Debrock S, Spiessens C, et al. A prospective randomized study: day 2 versus day 5 embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1507-12.
- Wilson M, Hartke K, Kiehl M, Rodgers J, Brabec C, Lyles R. Integration of blastocyst transfer for all patients. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 693-6.
- Schwärzler P, Zech H, Auer M, et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2097-102.
- Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 667-72.
- Zeng M, Su S, Li L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod and Genet 2018; 35: 127-34.
- Zhu Q, Zhu J, Wang Y, et al. Live birth rate and neonatal outcome following cleavage-stage embryo transfer versus blastocyst transfer using the freeze-all strategy. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38: 892-900.
- Vajta G, Parmegiani L. Cleavage stage vs. blastocyst transfer: a more considerate analysis suggested. Hum Reprod 2020; 35: 2399-400.
- Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 2014; 20: 117-26.
- Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson GD. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 128-33.
- Maheshwari A, Kalampokas T, Davidson J, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 1615-21.
- Karacan M, Ulug M, Arvas A, et al. Comparison of the transfer of equal numbers of blastocysts versus cleavage-stage embryos after repeated failure of in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 269-74.
- Morin SJ, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Neal SA, Scott RT, Seli E. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patient <38 years old: A quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance Hum Reprod 2018; 33: 1489-98.
A comparison of cleavage-stage embryo transfer and blastocyst transfers in patients with low anti-Mullerian hormone levels
Abstract
Aim: Decreased ovarian reserve is a common problem that many women struggle with and seek help by assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Embryo transfer (ET) is an important step in ART that can be performed on cleavage-stage (day 2 or 3) or blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6). This study aims to investigate the effect of ET day on pregnancy results in patients with low levels of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH).
Material and Method: This retrospective study enrolled 239 women with low AMH levels referred to the Bahçeşehir University, Göztepe Medikal Park Hospital In-vitro Fertilization (IVF) Clinic from May 2015 to April 2020. The patients were divided into two groups: blastocyst transfer group and cleavage-stage transfer group. Among the participants, blastocyst transfer was performed in 30 women and cleavage-stage ET on 209 women,respectively.
Results: Among 239 participants, 30 (12.6%) were in the blastocyst group, and 209 (87.4%) were in the cleavage-stage group. There was no significant difference in the total number of retrieved oocytes between the two groups (p=0.1). The number of mature oocytes (MII) was significantly different between the two groups (p=0.006). Examining pregnancy results between the two groups showed no significant difference between positive and negative pregnancy tests (p=0.4). Even though a higher live birth rate for the blastocyst transfer group was observed with 15(50%), no significant difference was found between the number of live births and miscarriages in the two groups (p=0.1).
Conclusion: The transfer day does not affect the pregnancy results in women with low AMH levels.
Keywords
Anti-mullerian hormone, Assisted Reproductive Technique, Blastocyte, Cleavage, Embryo transfer
Project Number
yok
References
- Lehmann P, Velez MP, Saumet J, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): a reliable biomarker of oocyte quality in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 493–8.
- Papanikolaou EG, Fatemi H, Venetis C, et al. Monozygotic twinning is not increased after single blastocyst transfer compared with single cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 592-7.
- Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren K-G, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 1680-3.
- Kokkali G, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C, et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of β-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Human Reprod 2007; 22: 1443-9.
- Mangalraj AM, Muthukumar K, Aleyamma T, Kamath MS, George K. Blastocyst stage transfer vs cleavage stage embryo transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci 2009; 2: 23-6.
- Milki AA, Jun SH, Hinckley MD, Behr B, Giudice LC, Westphal LM. Incidence of monozygotic twinning with blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage-stage transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 503-6.
- Barrenetxea G, de Larruzea AL, Ganzabal T, Jiménez R, Carbonero K, Mandiola M. Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril 2005; 83: 49-53.
- Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2381-90.
- Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman LR, Austin C, Goldberg J, Falcone T. Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12: 1-10.
- Jones GM, Trounson AO, Gardner DK, Kausche A, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Evolution of a culture protocol for successful blastocyst development and pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 169-77.
- Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, et al. Inhibin B and anti-mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients?. BJOG 2004; 111: 1248–53.
- La Marca A, Ferraretti AP, Palermo R, et al. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol 2016; 32: 1–5.
- Nikmard F, Aflatoonian B, Hosseini E, et al. A comparative study on the results of agonist and antagonist protocols based on serum AMH levels in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Int J Reprod Biomed 2016; 14: 769-76.
- Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 6: CD002118.
- Ishihara O, Kuwahara A, Saitoh H. Frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer reduces ectopic pregnancy risk: an analysis of single embryo transfer cycles in Japan. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1966-9.
- Martins W, Nastri C, Rienzi L, Van Der Poel S, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 2561-9.
- Coskun S, Hollanders J, Al-Hassan S, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Mayman H, Jaroudi K. Day 5 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a controlled randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1947-52.
- Levron J, Shulman A, Bider D, Seidman D, Levin T, Dor J. A prospective randomized study comparing day 3 with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 1300-1.
- Lundqvist M, Rova K, Simberg N, Lundkvist Ö. Embryo transfer after 2 or 5 days of IVF culture: a retrospective comparison. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scand 2002; 81: 126-32.
- Frattarelli JL, Leondires MP, McKeeby JL, Miller BT, Segars JH. Blastocyst transfer decreases multiple pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 228-30.
- Van der Auwera I, Debrock S, Spiessens C, et al. A prospective randomized study: day 2 versus day 5 embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1507-12.
- Wilson M, Hartke K, Kiehl M, Rodgers J, Brabec C, Lyles R. Integration of blastocyst transfer for all patients. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 693-6.
- Schwärzler P, Zech H, Auer M, et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2097-102.
- Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 667-72.
- Zeng M, Su S, Li L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod and Genet 2018; 35: 127-34.
- Zhu Q, Zhu J, Wang Y, et al. Live birth rate and neonatal outcome following cleavage-stage embryo transfer versus blastocyst transfer using the freeze-all strategy. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38: 892-900.
- Vajta G, Parmegiani L. Cleavage stage vs. blastocyst transfer: a more considerate analysis suggested. Hum Reprod 2020; 35: 2399-400.
- Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 2014; 20: 117-26.
- Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson GD. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 128-33.
- Maheshwari A, Kalampokas T, Davidson J, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 1615-21.
- Karacan M, Ulug M, Arvas A, et al. Comparison of the transfer of equal numbers of blastocysts versus cleavage-stage embryos after repeated failure of in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 269-74.
- Morin SJ, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Neal SA, Scott RT, Seli E. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patient <38 years old: A quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance Hum Reprod 2018; 33: 1489-98.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Project Number | yok |
| Publication Date | September 24, 2021 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2021 Volume: 3 Issue: 4 |
TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)
Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency: Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]
Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.
You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show
Journal Indexes and Platforms:
TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.The indexes of the journal's are;
|
|
|
|
The platforms of the journal's are;
|
|
|
|
The indexes/platforms of the journal are;
TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit
EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI is under evaluation.
Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"