Premium
Blastocyst vs cleavage‐stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta‐analysis of reproductive outcomes
Author(s) -
Martins W. P.,
Nastri C. O.,
Rienzi L.,
van der Poel S. Z.,
Gracia C.,
Racowsky C.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.202
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1469-0705
pISSN - 0960-7692
DOI - 10.1002/uog.17327
Subject(s) - blastocyst transfer , embryo transfer , intracytoplasmic sperm injection , blastocyst , in vitro fertilisation , medicine , andrology , embryo , gynecology , pregnancy , live birth , pregnancy rate , assisted reproductive technology , embryo culture , embryo quality , obstetrics , infertility , embryogenesis , biology , genetics
Objectives Blastocyst transfer in assisted reproduction techniques could be advantageous because the timing of exposure of the embryo to the uterine environment is more analogous to a natural cycle and permits embryo self‐selection after activation of the embryonic genome on day 3. Conversely, the in-vitro environment is likely to be inferior to that in vivo , and in-vitro culture beyond embryonic genomic activation could potentially harm the embryo. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarize the available evidence comparing the effectiveness of blastocyst vs cleavage‐stage embryo transfer. Methods This was a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials ( RCTs ) comparing the transfer of blastocysts (days 5–6) with the transfer of cleavage‐stage embryos (days 2–3) in women undergoing in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The last electronic searches were run on 1 August 2016. Abstracts and studies with a mean difference between the two study groups of > 0.5 for the number of embryos transferred were excluded. Results We screened 1187 records and assessed 33 potentially eligible studies. Twelve studies were included, comprising a total of 1200 women undergoing blastocyst transfer and 1218 undergoing cleavage‐stage embryo transfer. We observed low‐quality evidence of no significant difference of blastocyst transfer on live birth/ongoing pregnancy (relative risk ( RR ), 1.11 (95% CI , 0.92–1.35), 10 RCTs , 1940 women, I 2 = 54%), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.93–1.31), 12 RCTs, 2418 women, I 2 = 64%), cumulative pregnancy (RR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.67–1.16), four RCTs, 524 women, I 2 = 63%) and miscarriage (RR, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.74–1.56), 10 RCTs, 763 pregnancies, I 2 = 0%). There was moderate‐quality evidence of a decrease in the number of women with surplus embryos after the blastocyst‐stage embryo transfer (RR, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66–0.91)). Overall, the quality of the evidence was limited by the quality of the included studies and by unexplained inconsistency across studies. Conclusions Current evidence shows no superiority of blastocyst compared with cleavage‐stage embryo transfer in clinical practice. As the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes is low, additional well‐designed RCTs are still needed before robust conclusions can be drawn. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.