Dataset Information

Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo with a good quality embryo benefit poor prognosis patients?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:While single embryo transfer (SET) is widely advocated, double embryo transfer (DET) remains preferable in clinical practice to improve IVF success rate, especially in poor prognosis patients with only poor quality embryos (PQEs) available in addition to one or no good quality embryos (GQEs). Furthermore, previous studies suggest PQE might adversely affect the implantation of a GQE when transferred together. This study aims to evaluate the effect of transferring an additional PQE with a GQE on the outcomes in poor prognosis patients. METHODS:A total of 5037 frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (FBT) cycles between January 2012 and May 2019 were included. Propensity score matching was applied to control for potential confounders, and we used generalized estimating equations (GEE) models to identify the association between the effect of an additional PQE and the outcomes. RESULTS:Overall, transferring a PQE with GQE (Group GP) achieved significantly higher pregnancy rate (PR), live birth rate (LBR) and multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) than GQE only (group G). The addition of a PQE increased LBR in patients aged 35 and over and in patients who received over 3?cycles of embryo transfer (ET) (48.1% vs 27.2%, OR:2.56, 95% CI: 1.3-5.03 and 46.6% vs 35.4%, OR:1.6, 95% CI: 1.09-2.35), but not in women under 35 and in women who received less than 3?cycles of ET (48.7% vs 43.9%, OR:1.22, 95% CI: 0.93-1.59 and 48.3% vs 41.4%, OR:1.33, 95% CI: 0.96-1.85). Group GP resulted in significantly higher MPR than group G irrespective of age and the number of previous IVF cycles. CONCLUSIONS:An additional PQE does not negatively affect the implantation potential of the co-transferred GQE. Nevertheless, the addition of a PQE contributes to both live birth and multiple birth in poor prognosis patients. Physicians should still balance the benefits and risks of DET.

SUBMITTER: Wang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526391 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo with a good quality embryo benefit poor prognosis patients?

Wang Wenjie W Cai Jiali J Liu Lanlan L Xu Yingpei Y Liu Zhenfang Z Chen Jinghua J Jiang Xiaoming X Sun Xiaohua X Ren Jianzhi J

Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E 20200930 1

<h4>Background</h4>While single embryo transfer (SET) is widely advocated, double embryo transfer (DET) remains preferable in clinical practice to improve IVF success rate, especially in poor prognosis patients with only poor quality embryos (PQEs) available in addition to one or no good quality embryos (GQEs). Furthermore, previous studies suggest PQE might adversely affect the implantation of a GQE when transferred together. This study aims to evaluate the effect of transferring an additional ...[more]

PMID: 32998748

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Previous studies have reported the association between embryo quality and perinatal outcomes in fresh cycles, after cleavage-stage or blastocyst embryo transfer, and found no significant difference. However, in terms of vitrified-warmed embryo transfer cycles, the impact of embryo quality on neonatal and maternal outcomes has not been evaluated. Objectives:To explore the association between the quality of a single vitrified-warmed embryo and perinatal outcomes. Methods:This retrospective study included 2403 live-born singletons derived from single vitrified-warmed embryo transfer cycles during January 2006 and July 2018. Neonatal and maternal outcomes were compared between singletons resulting from the use of single good quality embryo (GQE) (n = 1854) and single poor quality embryo (PQE) (n = 549) and analyzed in the group of cleavage-stage embryo transfer and the group of blastocyst transfer, respectively. Results:A significantly higher risk of low birthweight (LBW, birthweight <2500 g) was observed in the singletons derived from the transfer of single PQE compared with those derived from the transfer of single GQE both in cleavage and blastocyst stages (cleavage-stage, AOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.27-5.37; blastocyst stage, AOR 1.98, 95% CI 1.06-3.70). An increased risk of preterm birth (PTB, gestational age <37 weeks) was also observed in singletons born after transfer of a PQE of cleavage-stage compared with those after a GQE of cleavage-stage (AOR 2.40, 95% CI 1.28-4.49). The transfer of single poor quality blastocyst was associated with a higher risk of placenta previa compared with the transfer of single good quality blastocyst (AOR 2.65, 95% CI 1.26-5.57). Other maternal complications, neonatal malformations, and neonatal complications were similar between compared groups. Conclusion:In vitrified-warmed cycles with single embryo transfer, poor embryo quality would result in a significantly higher risk of LBW, regardless of cleavage-stage or blastocyst embryo transfer. Meanwhile, the transfer of poor cleavage-stage embryo was also associated with an increased incidence of PTB.

Project description:BACKGROUND:With improvements in in vitro culture techniques there has been a steady shift in practice to transfer embryos at the blastocyst stage (post fertilization day (p.f.d.) 5-7), when embryos reach the endometrial cavity during natural conception. For patients with >?5 zygotes on day 1 of embryo development, fresh blastocyst embryo transfer (ET) increases live birth rates when compared to cleavage stage (p.f.d. 3) transfer. In poorer prognosis patients (? 5 zygotes) cleavage stage ET is commonly performed to reduce the risk of cycle cancellation if no embryo survives to the blastocyst stage. However, there is a dearth of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data demonstrating improved live birth rates per cycle for cleavage vs blastocyst stage ET in this subgroup of patients. The hypothesis of the PRECiSE (PooR Embryo Yield Cleavage Stage Versus blaStocyst Embryo Transfer) trial is that blastocyst ET is not inferior to cleavage stage ET with regard to live birth rates per retrieval in poorer prognosis patients. The adoption of routine blastocyst culture for all patients would result in higher rates of single embryo transfers (SET), reduced incidence of multiple pregnancies and simplified laboratory protocols, thereby reducing costs. METHODS/DESIGN:Multicenter, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing blastocyst to cleavage stage embryo transfer in poorer prognosis patients with ?5 zygotes on day 1 after fertilization. The primary outcome is live birth per retrieval. Secondary outcomes include: time to pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rate (per retrieval). This trial will enroll 658 women with ?5 zygotes on day 1 at 6 IVF centers over the course of 22?months. DISCUSSION:If the hypothesis is proven true, the data from this trial may facilitate the adoption of uniform blastocyst culture in all IVF patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03764865. Registered 5 December 2019, Protocol issue date: 4 December 2018, Original.

Project description:Background:To evaluate if it is safe and effective to transfer poor quality embryos. Methods:It was a retrospective analysis using individual patient data with positive controls. All patients undergoing embryo transfers of poor quality embryos on day 3 or on day 5 as part of fresh In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) cycles performed between 2012 and 2016. This study assessed a total of 738 poor quality embryos from 488 IVF programs. 261 embryo transfers were performed on day 3 (402 embryos were transferred) and 227 on day 5 (336 embryos were transferred). Control group consisted of 9893 fair and good quality embryos from 5994 IVF programs. Outcome rates were compared with two-tailed Fisher exact test using fisher.test function in R software. 95% confidence intervals for proportions were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method with binom.test function in R. The groups of patients with poor vs. good and fair quality embryos were compared by age, body mass index(BMI), number of oocytes, female and male main diagnosis, cycle type, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol, the starting day of gonadotropin administration, the starting dose of gonadotropins, the total dose of gonadotropins, the total number of days of gonadotropins administration, the starting day of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration, the total number of ampoules of GnRH-agonist used, day of the trigger of ovulation administration and the type of the trigger of ovulation using the Student's t-test for interval variables and with the chi-square test for nominal variables. Results:No significant differences in the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, live births, and the number of children born were found between the groups of poor quality embryos transferred on day 3 and day 5. Though the implantation rate was lower for the group of poor quality embryos, than for the control (13.9% vs 37.2%), statistically significant differences between the proportion of implanted embryos which resulted in clinical pregnancies and live births in both groups were not observed (72% vs 78.2 and 55.8% vs 62.0% respectively). Conclusion:Transfer of poor quality embryos at either day 3 or day 5 have a low potential for implantation, though those embryos which successfully implanted have the same potential for live birth as the embryos of fair and good quality. This study supports that it is safe to transfer poor quality embryos when they are the only option for fresh embryo transfer (ET).

Project description:IntroductionSpermatozoa motility is the critical parameter to affect the treatment outcomes during assisted reproductive technologies (ART), but its reproductive capability remains a little informed in condition of severe male factor infertility. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the effects of reduced sperm motility on the embryological and clinical outcomes in intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment of severe oligozoospermia.Patients and methods966 cycles (812 couples) of severe oligozoospermia diagnosed by spermatozoa count ? 5 × 106/mL and motile spermatozoa ? 2 × 106/mL were divided into four groups in according to the number of motile spermatozoa in one ejaculate on the day of oocyte retrieval (Group B-E). The control (Group A) was 188 cycles of moderate oligozoospermia with spermatozoa count > 5 × 106/mL and motile spermatozoa > 2 × 106/mL. All female partners were younger than 35 years of age. Logistic regression analyzed embryological outcomes (the rates of fertilization, cleavage and good-quality embryo) and clinical outcomes (the rates of pregnancy, implantation, early miscarriage and live birth). Quality of embryo transfer (ET) was divided into three classes as continuous factor to test the effects of embryo quality on clinical outcomes.ResultsThe reduction in the number of motile sperm in four groups of severe oligozoospermia gave rise to comparable inability of the fertilization (p < 0.001) and a decreased rate of good-quality embryo at Day 3 (p < 0.001) by compared to the control. The cleavage rate of the derived zygotes was similar to the control. ET classes significantly affected the clinical outcomes (p < 0.001). Class I ET gave rise to similar rates of clinical outcomes between five groups, but Class II and Class III ET retarded the rates of pregnancy, implantation and live birth and this particularly occurred in Group C, D and E. The rate of early miscarriage was not comparably different between groups. Overall rates in all groups were 41.26% clinical pregnancy, 25.74% implantation and 36.32% live birth, which gave live birth to 252 girls and 252 boys.ConclusionsThe reduction of motile spermatozoa in severe oligozoospermia decreased the rates of fertilization and good-quality embryo. Obtaining and transfer of good-quality embryos was the good prognostic to achieve prospective clinical outcomes regardless of the severity of oligozoospermia.

Project description:BackgroundPreviously manual human embryology in many in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers is rapidly being replaced by closed embryo incubation systems with time-lapse imaging. Whether such systems perform comparably to manual embryology in different IVF patient populations has, however, never before been investigated. We, therefore, prospectively compared embryo quality following closed system culture with time-lapse photography (EmbryoScope™) and standard embryology. We performed a two-part prospectively randomized study in IVF (clinical trial # NCT92256309). Part A involved 31 infertile poor prognosis patients prospectively randomized to EmbryoScope™ and standard embryology. Part B involved embryos from 17 egg donor-recipient cycles resulting in large egg/embryo numbers, thus permitting prospectively alternative embryo assignments to EmbryoScope™ and standard embryology. We then compared pregnancy rates and embryo quality on day-3 after fertilization and embryologist time utilized per processed embryo.ResultsPart A revealed in poor prognosis patients no differences in day-3 embryo scores, implantation and clinical pregnancy rates between EmbryoScope™ and standard embryology. The EmbryoScope™, however, more than doubled embryology staff time (P < 0.0001). In Part B, embryos grown in the EmbyoScope™ demonstrated significantly poorer day-3 quality (depending on embryo parameter between P = 0.005 and P = 0.01). Suspicion that conical culture dishes of the EmbryoScope™ (EmbryoSlide™) may be the cause was disproven when standard culture dishes demonstrated no outcome difference in standard incubation.ConclusionsThough due to small patient numbers preliminary, this study raises concerns about the mostly uncontrolled introduction of closed incubation systems with time lapse imaging into routine clinical embryology. Appropriately designed and powered prospectively randomized studies appear urgently needed in well-defined patient populations before the uncontrolled utilization of these instruments further expands.Trial registrationNCT02246309 Registered September 18, 2014.

Project description:ImportanceMore patients with cancer use hospice currently than ever before, but there are indications that care intensity outside of hospice is increasing, and length of hospice stay decreasing. Uncertainties regarding how hospice affects health care utilization and costs have hampered efforts to promote it.ObjectiveTo compare utilization and costs of health care for patients with poor-prognosis cancers enrolled in hospice vs similar patients without hospice care.Design, setting, and participantsMatched cohort study of patients in hospice and nonhospice care using a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who died in 2011. Patients with poor-prognosis cancers (eg, brain, pancreatic, metastatic malignancies) enrolled in hospice before death were matched to similar patients who died without hospice care.ExposuresPeriod between hospice enrollment and death for hospice beneficiaries, and the equivalent period of nonhospice care before death for matched nonhospice patients.Main outcomes and measuresHealth care utilization including hospitalizations and procedures, place of death, cost trajectories before and after hospice start, and cumulative costs, all during the last year of life.ResultsAmong 86,851 patients with poor-prognosis cancers, median time from first poor-prognosis diagnosis to death was 13 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3-34), and 51,924 patients (60%) entered hospice before death. Matching yielded a cohort balanced on age, sex, region, time from poor-prognosis diagnosis to death, and baseline care utilization, with 18,165 patients in the hospice group and 18,165 in the nonhospice group. After matching, 11% of nonhospice and 1% of hospice beneficiaries who had cancer-directed therapy after exposure were excluded. Median hospice duration was 11 days. After exposure, nonhospice beneficiaries had significantly more hospitalizations (65% [95% CI, 64%-66%], vs hospice with 42% [95% CI, 42%-43%]; risk ratio, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.5-1.6]), intensive care (36% [95% CI, 35%-37%], vs hospice with 15% [95% CI, 14%-15%]; risk ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.3-2.5]), and invasive procedures (51% [95% CI, 50%-52%], vs hospice with 27% [95% CI, 26%-27%]; risk ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.9-2.0]), largely for acute conditions not directly related to cancer; and 74% (95% CI, 74%-75%) of nonhospice beneficiaries died in hospitals and nursing facilities compared with 14% (95% CI, 14%-15%) of hospice beneficiaries. Costs for hospice and nonhospice beneficiaries were not significantly different at baseline, but diverged after hospice start. Total costs over the last year of life were $71,517 (95% CI, $70,543-72,490) for nonhospice and $62,819 (95% CI, $62,082-63,557) for hospice, a statistically significant difference of $8697 (95% CI, $7560-$9835).Conclusions and relevanceIn this sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with poor-prognosis cancer, those receiving hospice care vs not (control), had significantly lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and invasive procedures at the end of life, along with significantly lower total costs during the last year of life.

Dataset Information

Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo with a good quality embryo benefit poor prognosis patients?

Publications

Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo with a good quality embryo benefit poor prognosis patients?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets