Abstract
This study aims to investigate the effects of different transfer strategies (blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo) on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and perinatal outcomes. In this propensity score matching (PSM) study, we evaluated the clinical data of 683 oocyte retrieval cycles performed using in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from June 2017 to December 2022. The primary outcome was CLBR. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, implantation, live birth, multiple pregnancy, abortion (<28 weeks), ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth (<37 weeks), stillbirth, pregnancy complications, gestational age, birth weight, sex ratio, and birth defects in newborns. After PSM, compared to the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group in fresh embryo transfer cycles, the number of embryos transferred was lower, implantation rate was higher, and multiple pregnancy rate was lower in the blastocyst transfer group. In frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles, the number of embryos transferred was lower, and clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate and live birth rate were higher in the blastocyst transfer group. The CLBR was higher, and the multiple pregnancy rate was lower in the blastocyst transfer group. There was no statistically significant difference in perinatal outcomes between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis showed that CLBR was positively affected by the number of frozen embryos, and blastocyst transfer increased the CLBR. We conclude that blastocyst transfer is beneficial for improving CLBR and reducing multiple pregnancy rate.
Keywords: blastocyst transfer, cleavage-stage embryo transfer, cumulative live birth rate, perinatal outcomes, vitrification
1. Introduction
The influence of blastocyst transfer and cleavage-stage embryo transfer on pregnancy outcomes has always been controversial. On the 1 hand, it was reported that there was no disparity in pregnancy outcomes between fresh blastocyst transfer and cleavage-stage embryo transfer.[1] On the other hand, some studies have shown that blastocyst transfer may be more advantageous than cleavage-stage embryo transfer in the fresh cycle.[2,3]
With the continuous advancement of vitrification technology, the survival rate of frozen blastocysts is equivalent to that of cleavage-stage embryos,[4,5] and the number of frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET) has significantly increased.[6]
The cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval cycle, which is defined as the percentage of cycles that obtain the first live birth after using all embryos for fresh and subsequent freeze–thaw cycles, has been recommended as a suitable method for reporting the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF)/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).[7] A previous study suggested that blastocyst transfer did not improve the CLBR.[8] Nevertheless, other studies have indicated that transfer of vitrified blastocysts leads to a higher CLBR than cleavage-stage embryo transfer.[9,10]
Perinatal outcomes after blastocyst transfer are also concerning. Some studies have reported that blastocyst transfer may be associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, including placental complications and preterm birth, compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer.[11–13] However, other studies have indicated that there may be no differences in the risk of perinatal outcomes.[14–16]
Currently, vitrification is used in the cryopreservation of embryos, however, the optimal transfer strategy (blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo) remains controversial. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to eliminate selection bias in this retrospective study, and we aimed to investigate the effects of these 2 transfer strategies on CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle and perinatal outcomes.
2. Methods
2.1. Study population
We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the clinical data of 683 oocyte retrieval cycles performed by IVF/ICSI between June 2017 and December 2022 at the Reproductive Medicine Center, Lianyungang Maternal and Child Health Hospital. Either cleavage-stage embryo transfer or blastocyst transfer was performed at the patient’s discretion after a detailed discussion with the clinicians. The women were under 42 years of age, with 5 or more oocytes retrieved on the day of oocyte retrieval. Patients with more than 3 IVF/ICSI cycles, chromosomal abnormalities, or endometrial disorders were excluded. There were 418 oocyte retrieval cycles in the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group and 265 cycles in the blastocyst transfer group. After matching the baseline data using PSM, 208 oocyte retrieval cycles were included in both the groups. This study was approved by the ethical committee of Lianyungang Maternal and Child Health Hospital (LYG~MER2021022).
2.2. Ovarian stimulation protocol
The long agonist, antagonist, or microdose flare protocol was used according to the clinician’s preference. When at least 2 follicles reached a mean diameter of 18 mm or 3 follicles reached 17 mm, recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) (Ovidrel, Merck-Serono, Magnolia, Italy) 250 μg was given. Oocyte retrieval was performed 36 hours later.
2.3. Embryo culture
Fertilization using IVF or ICSI depends on sperm quality and quantity. The quality of cleavage-stage embryos was assessed using morphological criteria based on cell number, cell fragments, and symmetry of blastomeres.[17] Blastocyst quality was evaluated using the Gardner grading guide,[18] according to expansion, inner cell mass, and trophectoderm development. High-quality cleavage embryos or blastocysts were transferred into the uterus, and vitrification was used for cryopreservation of the remaining embryos in both groups. Freezing and thawing of the embryos were performed according to the Vitrification Product Instruction Manual (Kitazato, Japan). FET was performed if the fresh embryo cycle transfer did not result in a live birth.
2.4. Endometrial preparation and luteal support
For FET, the natural cycle, hormone replacement cycle, or ovulation induction cycle was performed to prepare the endometrium.[19] Luteal support with vaginal progesterone soft capsule 200 mg/d and oral dydrogesterone 20 mg/d was initiated on the day of oocyte retrieval. If the patient had a positive β-HCG test on days 12 to 14, ultrasound examinations were performed after 4 to 5 weeks to identify pregnancy, which was defined as an intrauterine living fetus with a heartbeat. If pregnancy was achieved, luteal support was continued for 70 days.
2.5. Measure outcomes and follow-up
Patients were followed up until the birth of their first child. The primary outcome was CLBR. Live birth of twins or multiples were counted as 1 live birth. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, implantation, live birth, multiple pregnancy, abortion (<28 weeks), ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth (<37 weeks), stillbirth, pregnancy complications, gestational age, birth weight, sex ratio, and birth defects in newborns.
2.6. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 26.0). Continuous variables were analyzed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Normally distributed data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and an independent Student t test was used for comparison between the 2 groups. The chi-squared (χ2) test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical variables. PSM was performed to match the baseline data of the 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for potential confounders and to compare CLBR between the 2 groups. A 2-sided P-value < .05 was utilized as statistical significance.
3. Results
3.1. Basic information and PSM
A total of 683 oocyte retrieval cycles were included in the study, and most of the baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group and blastocyst transfer group before PSM, except for estradiol level on the trigger day, number of oocytes retrieved, number of fertilization, and viable cleavage-stage embryos on day 3 (Table 1). After PSM, 208 oocyte retrieval cycles were included in the 2 groups respectively and there was no statistically significant difference in baseline variables (Table 1).
Table 1.
Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients.
| Before PSM | P-value | After PSM | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (n = 418) | Blastocyst transfer group (n = 265) | Cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (n = 208) | Blastocyst transfer group (n = 208) | |||
| Female age (years) | 31.08 ± 4.12 | 30.80 ± 3.76 | .359 | 30.58 ± 3.70 | 30.52 ± 3.79 | .875 |
| Male age (years) | 32.12 ± 5.11 | 32.14 ± 4.61 | .968 | 31.98 ± 4.75 | 31.79 ± 4.49 | .671 |
| Duration of infertility (years) | 4.11 ± 2.95 | 3.91 ± 2.59 | .385 | 4.01 ± 3.01 | 3.91 ± 2.65 | .385 |
| No. of previous IVF/ICSI cycles | 1.18 ± 0.46 | 1.23 ± 0.51 | .206 | 1.19 ± 0.44 | 1.20 ± 0.46 | .743 |
| Type of infertility | .944 | .201 | ||||
| Primary infertility | 45.9% (192/418) | 45.7% (121/265) | 42.3% (88/208) | 48.6% (101/208) | ||
| Secondary infertility | 54.1% (226/418) | 54.3% (144/265) | 61.5% (128/208) | 51.4% (107/208) | ||
| Infertility factors | .421 | .164 | ||||
| Ovulation dysfunction | 50.2% (210/418) | 50.6% (134/265) | 52.4% (109/208) | 49.5% (103/208) | ||
| Tubal factor | 17.7% (74/418) | 18.1% (48/265) | 17.8% (37/208) | 18.8% (39/208) | ||
| Endometriosis | 4.8% (20/418) | 7.9% (21/265) | 3.4% (7/208) | 9.1% (19/208) | ||
| Male factor | 11.5% (48/418) | 8.3% (22/265) | 7.7% (16/208) | 8.7% (18/208) | ||
| Unexplained infertility | 12.0% (50/418) | 12.8% (34/265) | 14.9% (31/208) | 12.0% (25/208) | ||
| Both female and male | 3.8% (16/418) | 2.3% (6/265) | 3.8% (8/208) | 1.9% (4/208) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.91 ± 3.20 | 22.95 ± 2.94 | .831 | 22.90 ± 3.08 | 22.70 ± 3.00 | .514 |
| FSH (IU/L) | 6.15 ± 1.52 | 5.96 ± 1.92 | .148 | 6.24 ± 1.57 | 6.05 ± 2.01 | .282 |
| AFC | 17.37 ± 8.58 | 16.79 ± 7.34 | .349 | 16.41 ± 8.09 | 16.62 ± 7.26 | .78 |
| AMH (μg/L) | 4.55 ± 2.85 | 4.20 ± 2.43 | .09 | 4.23 ± 2.85 | 4.21 ± 2.41 | .934 |
| Ovarian stimulation | .165 | .182 | ||||
| Long agonist protocol | 75.1% (314/418) | 69.4% (184/265) | 79.3% (165/208) | 85.1% (177/208) | ||
| Antagonist protocol | 14.4% (60/418) | 15.5% (41/265) | 13.0% (27/208) | 11.1% (23/208) | ||
| Microdose flare protocol | 10.5% (44/418) | 15.1% (40/265) | 7.7% (24/208) | 3.8% (8/208) | ||
| Fertilization | .772 | .77 | ||||
| IVF | 87.6% (366/418) | 88.3% (234/265) | 87.5% (182/208) | 86.5% (180/208) | ||
| ICSI | 12.4% (52/418) | 11.7% (31/265) | 12.5% (26/208) | 13.5% (28/208) | ||
| Estradiol level on trigger day (pg/ml) | 3312.59 ± 1294.28 | 3719.46 ± 1234.12 | <.001* | 3648.80 ± 1226.66 | 3735.78 ± 1233.42 | .927 |
| No. of oocytes retrieved | 8.37 ± 3.24 | 9.01 ± 2.84 | .010* | 8.97 ± 3.61 | 8.78 ± 2.67 | .547 |
| No. of fertilization | 6.76 ± 2.74 | 7.41 ± 2.42 | .002* | 7.19 ± 2.99 | 7.10 ± 2.21 | .737 |
| D3 viable cleavage-stage embryos | 4.79 ± 1.86 | 5.32 ± 2.82 | .008* | 4.98 ± 2.03 | 4.95 ± 2.71 | .902 |
| D3 high-quality cleavage-stage embryos | 3.66 ± 1.90 | 3.79 ± 2.80 | .504 | 3.56 ± 1.92 | 3.58 ± 2.69 | .95 |
| No. of frozen embryos | 2.92 ± 1.79 | 2.98 ± 1.91 | .691 | 3.06 ± 1.82 | 2.74 ± 1.74 | .07 |
Data are presented as the mean ± SD or % (positive/total number).
AFC = antral follicle count in both ovaries, AMH = anti-Müllerian Hormone, BMI = body mass index, D3 = day 3, FSH = follicle-stimulating hormone, ICSI = intracytoplasmic sperm injection, IVF = in vitro fertilization.
P-value <.05.
3.2. Embryo transfer and clinical outcomes
As shown in Table 2. Compared to the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group in the fresh embryo transfer cycles, the number of embryos transferred in the blastocyst transfer group was lower (P < .001), and there was no statistically significant difference in the endometrial thickness and rate of high-quality embryos transferred. No differences in clinical pregnancy rate, abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, and live birth rate were observed between the 2 groups. The implantation rate was higher (P = .009), and multiple pregnancy rate was significantly lower (P = .049) in the blastocyst transfer group than in the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group.
Table 2.
Comparison of clinical outcomes in fresh embryo transfer cycles.
| Cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (n = 208) | Blastocyst transfer group (n = 208) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endometrial thickness (mm) | 11.76 ± 1.69 | 11.73 ± 2.02 | .864 |
| No. of embryos transferred | 1.80 ± 0.40 | 1.40 ± 0.49 | <.001* |
| Rate of high-quality embryos transferred | 80.7% (302/374) | 77.0% (224/291) | .235 |
| Clinical pregnancy rate | 61.5% (128/208) | 64.4% (134/208) | .542 |
| Implantation rate | 41.7% (156/374) | 51.9% (151/291) | .009* |
| Multiple pregnancy rate | 21.9% (28/128) | 12.7% (17/134) | .049* |
| Abortion rate | 7.8% (10/128) | 8.2% (11/134) | .906 |
| Ectopic pregnancy rate | 0.8% (1/128) | 2.2% (3/134) | .647 |
| Live birth rate | 56.3% (117/208) | 57.1% (120/208) | .766 |
Data are presented as the mean ± SD or % (positive/total number).
P-value < .05.
As shown in Table 3. In the FET cycles, the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group included 116 cycles and the blastocyst transfer group included 100 cycles. There was no statistically significant difference in the survival rate of embryos, endometrial preparation, endometrial thickness, and the rate of high-quality embryos transferred. The number of embryos transferred in the blastocyst transfer group was lower than that in the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (P < .001). No differences in clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate were observed between the 2 groups. The clinical pregnancy rate (P = .015), implantation rate (P < .001), and live birth rate (P = .003) were significantly higher in the blastocyst transfer group than in the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group.
Table 3.
Comparison of clinical outcomes in frozen embryo transfer cycles.
| Cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (n = 116) | Blastocyst transfer group (n = 100) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Survival rate of embryos | 98.1% (202/206) | 98.5% (131/133) | >.999 |
| Endometrial preparation | .088 | ||
| Natural cycles | 34.5% (40/116) | 21.0% (21/100) | |
| Hormone replacement cycles | 34.5% (40/116) | 43.0% (43/100) | |
| Ovulation induction cycle | 31.0% (36/116) | 36.0% (36/100) | |
| Endometrial thickness (mm) | 11.59 ± 1.94 | 11.15 ± 2.03 | .104 |
| No. of embryos transferred | 1.72 ± 0.45 | 1.31 ± 0.47 | <.001* |
| Rate of high-quality embryos transferred | 70.5% (141/200) | 71.0% (93/131) | .923 |
| Clinical pregnancy rate | 47.4% (55/116) | 64.0% (64/100) | .015* |
| Implantation rate | 31.5% (63/200) | 55.7% (73/131) | <.001* |
| Multiple pregnancy rate | 14.5% (8/55) | 14.1% (9/64) | .94 |
| Abortion rate | 12.7% (7/55) | 7.8% (5/64) | .375 |
| Ectopic pregnancy rate | 9.1% (5/55) | 1.6% (1/64) | .061 |
| Live birth rate | 37.1% (43/116) | 57.0% (57/100) | .003* |
Data are presented as the mean ± SD or % (positive/total number).
P-value < .05.
3.3. CLBR and perinatal outcomes
Table 4 shows that CLBR was higher (P = .034) and multiple pregnancy rate was lower (P = .016) in the blastocyst transfer group than in the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the monozygotic twin rate, preterm birth rate, stillbirth rate, pregnancy complication rate, sex ratio, gestational age, low birth weight, macrosomia, and birth defects in newborns.
Table 4.
Comparison of CLBR and perinatal outcomes.
| Cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (n = 208) | Blastocyst transfer group (n = 208) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLBR | 76.9% (160/208) | 85.1% (177/208) | .034* |
| Multiple pregnancy rate | 23.8% (38/160) | 13.6% (24/177) | .016* |
| Monozygotic twin rate | 5.3% (2/38) | 4.2% (1/24) | >0.999 |
| Preterm birth rate | 7.5% (12/160) | 13.6% (24/177) | .072 |
| Stillbirth rate | 0% (0/160) | 0.6% (1/178) | .527 |
| Pregnancy complications rate | 9.8% (18/183) | 10.6% (21/198) | .804 |
| Sex ratio | .341 | ||
| Male | 52.5% (104/198) | 47.8% (96/201) | |
| Female | 47.5% (94/198) | 52.2% (105/201) | |
| Gestational age (week) | 38.62 ± 1.51 | 38.53 ± 1.52 | .575 |
| LBW (<2500g) | 12.1% (24/198) | 8.0% (16/201) | .166 |
| Macrosomia (≥4000 g) | 8.6% (17/198) | 9.0% (18/201) | .896 |
| Birth defects in newborns | 0% (0/198) | 1.1% (2/201) | .505 |
Data are presented as the mean ± SD or % (positive/total number).
CLBR = cumulative live birth rate, LBW = low birthweight.
P-value <.05.
3.4. Regression analysis
As shown in Table 5, the univariate logistic regression analysis showed that CLBR was affected by female age, infertility factors, antral follicle count in both ovaries, ovarian stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved, viable cleavage-stage embryos on day 3, high-quality cleavage-stage embryos on day 3, number of frozen embryos, and types of transferred embryos. The other characteristics did not have any effects. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for confounders, and the results showed that the CLBR was positively affected by the number of frozen embryos. Compared to cleavage-stage, blastocyst transfer can improve CLBR.
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis of baseline characteristics on CLBR.
| Univariate logistic regression analysis | Multivariable logistic regression analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P-value | а OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Female age (years) | 0.916 (0.859–0.977) | .007* | 0.948 (0.883–1.019) | .146 |
| Male age (years) | 0.978 (0.929–1.030) | .4 | / | / |
| Duration of infertility (years) | 0.973 (0.895–1.059) | .53 | / | / |
| No. of previous IVF/ICSI cycles | 0.633 (0.388–1.034) | .068 | / | / |
| Type of infertility | ||||
| Primary infertility | Ref | / | / | |
| Secondary infertility | 0.832 (0.507–1.367) | .468 | / | / |
| Infertility factors | ||||
| Ovulation dysfunction | Ref | Ref | ||
| Tubal factor | 0.710 (0.371–1.357) | .3 | 0.905 (0.443–1.848) | .784 |
| Endometriosis | 0.682 (0.256–1.817) | .444 | 0.690 (0.246–1.934) | .48 |
| Male factor | 0.955 (0.368–2.373) | .924 | 0.998 (0.363–2.743) | .996 |
| Unexplained infertility | 1.068 (0.481–2.373) | .871 | 1.066 (0.450–2.527) | .884 |
| Both female and male | 0.286 (0.086–0.953) | .042* | 0.340 (0.089–1.302) | .115 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.947 (0.875–1.025) | .177 | / | / |
| FSH (IU/L) | 0.928 (0.815–1.056) | .255 | / | / |
| AFC | 1.048 (1.010–1.087) | .013* | 1.029 (0.989–1.070) | .152 |
| AMH (μg/L) | 1.029 (0.934–1.133) | .568 | / | / |
| Ovarian stimulation | ||||
| Long agonist protocol | Ref | Ref | ||
| Antagonist protocol | 0.969 (0.447–2.101) | .937 | 1.177 (0.515–2.692) | .699 |
| Microdose flare protocol | 0.298 (0.126–0.703) | .006* | 0.428 (0.162–1.129) | .086 |
| Fertilization | ||||
| IVF | Ref | / | / | |
| ICSI | 0.625 (0.322–1.216) | .167 | / | / |
| No. of oocytes retrieved | 1.097 (1.006–1.195) | .036* | 1.009 (0.911–1.118) | .866 |
| D3 viable cleavage-stage embryos | 1.136 (1.014–1.272) | .027* | 0.798 (0.608–1.048) | .105 |
| D3 high-quality cleavage-stage embryos | 1.180 (1.047–1.331) | .007* | 1.237 (0.970–1.577) | .087 |
| No. of frozen embryos | 1.314 (1.102–1.567) | .002* | 1.406 (1.070–1.848) | .014* |
| Types of transferred embryos | ||||
| Cleavage-stage embryo transfer | Ref | Ref | ||
| Blastocyst transfer group | 1.829 (1.107–3.021) | .019* | 2.032 (1.178–3.504) | .011* |
AFC = Antral follicle count in both ovaries, AMH = Anti-Müllerian Hormone, BMI = Body mass index, D3 = day 3, FSH = Follicle-stimulating hormone, ICSI = intracytoplasmic sperm injection, IVF = in vitro fertilization, OR = odds ratio, Ref = reference category.
P-value < .05.
4. Discussion
There is an ongoing debate regarding the benefits of blastocyst transfer. A systematic review reported that fresh blastocyst transfer led to a higher clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate than cleavage-stage embryo transfer.[2] However, for transfer at a later date, frozen supernumerary embryos were lower in the blastocyst transfer group. Our study indicated that there were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate between fresh blastocyst transfer and fresh cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the number of frozen embryos after fresh embryo transfer. This may be attributed to the advancement of blastocyst culture technology and the lower number of embryos transferred during fresh blastocyst transfer than during fresh cleavage-stage embryo transfer.
With the wide application of the vitrification technique, the difference between blastocyst and cleavage-stage embryos in FET is negligible.[20–22] Hence, the CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle is recommended as a key indicator of treatment success rate. In a previous study, the survival rate of the embryos was approximately 80%.[23] In contrast, embryo cryopreservation and thawing in this study were conducted using the vitrification technique totally. As a result, the survival rate of the embryos was similar, with > 98% survival in the 2 groups. Furthermore, our study indicated that the clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, and live birth rate were higher in the blastocyst transfer group than in the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group in FET cycles.
It has been demonstrated that the vitrification procedure can cause zona pellucida hardening, which may decrease fertilization ability.[24] Nevertheless, laser-assisted hatching during frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer can increase implantation rate, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate.[25] In this study, all FET cycles were conducted using laser-assisted hatching, which may have contributed to improving CLBR and perinatal outcomes.
The effect of different types of transferred embryos (blastocysts vs cleavage-stage embryos) on CLBR is still uncertain. In our study, PSM was performed to match baseline data, and logistic regression analysis was used to control for potential confounders. We found that blastocyst transfer had a higher CLBR than cleavage-stage embryo transfer, which is consistent with the results of other studies.[9,10] Compared to the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group, the number of embryos transferred in the blastocyst transfer group was lower in this study, which contributed to increasing the transplantable cycles of blastocysts that were associated with a significantly higher live birth rate.
In a previous study, not all blastocysts were derived from high-quality cleavage-stage embryos.[26] Compared to blastocysts derived from high-quality cleavage-stage embryos, blastocysts derived from poor-quality cleavage-stage embryos can lead to chromosomal aberrations[27] and a lower live birth rate.[28] In our study, only high-quality cleavage-stage embryos were cultured to the blastocyst-stage, which may contribute to improving the CLBR.
Perinatal outcomes are also important factors affecting embryo transfer strategies. A retrospective cohort study revealed that in patients receiving assisted reproductive technology, multiple pregnancy rate and adverse obstetric outcomes were common occurrences, that included cesarean delivery, low birthweight, preterm birth, gestational diabetes, postpartum hemorrhage, preeclampsia and eclampsia, dystocia, and postpartum hemorrhage.[29]
Our results indicated that blastocyst transfer resulted in a higher implantation rate and lower multiple pregnancy rate than cleavage-stage embryo transfer. We attributed the lower risk of multiple pregnancy to the lower number of embryos transferred in the blastocyst transfer group. It has been demonstrated that extended culture to the blastocyst-stage for transfer is safe.[30] Furthermore, extended embryo culture to the blastocyst-stage led to the exposure of embryos to the environment, which is analogous to the natural cycle, and enabled the selection of high-quality blastocysts with a higher implantation potential.[31]
Some previous studies speculated that blastocyst transfer may be associated with the risk of placenta previa, preterm birth, and an altered male/female ratio.[13,26,32] However, other studies have not supported these conclusions.[12,33,34] Our results suggest that there was no increased risk of perinatal outcomes in the blastocyst transfer group compared with the cleavage-stage embryo transfer group.
This study has several limitations. Although PSM was performed to match the baseline data, and logistic regression analysis was used to control for potential confounders, it may not completely avoid the limitations of a single-center retrospective study. In addition, only women under 42 years of age with 5 or more oocytes retrieved on the day of oocyte retrieval were included in this study, which leads to the fact that our results are not applicable to all infertility in women.
5. Conclusion
Blastocyst transfer has a higher CLBR and a lower multiple pregnancy rate than cleavage-stage embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles in women under 42 years of age with 5 or more oocytes retrieved on the day of oocyte retrieval. There was no difference in perinatal outcomes. We would suggest that these women select a blastocyst transfer strategy.
Author contributions
Data curation: Jianfeng Wu.
Investigation: Jianfeng Wu, Ning Yang.
Software: Jianfeng Wu.
Visualization: Jianfeng Wu, Ning Yang.
Writing – original draft: Jianfeng Wu.
Methodology: Ning Yang.
Project administration: Ning Yang.
Validation: Ning Yang.
Writing – review & editing: Ning Yang.
Abbreviations:
- AFC
- antral follicle count in both ovaries
- AMH
- anti-müllerian hormone
- BMI
- body mass index
- CLBR
- cumulative live birth rate
- D3
- day 3
- FET
- frozen-thawed embryo transfers
- FSH
- follicle-stimulating hormone
- HCG
- human chorionic gonadotropin
- ICSI
- intracytoplasmic sperm injection
- IVF
- in vitro fertilization
- LBW
- low birthweight
- OR
- odds ratio
- PSM
- propensity score matching
- Ref
- reference category
This study was approved by the ethical committee of Lianyungang Maternal and Child Health Hospital. All patients had signed informed consent on obtaining and analyzing their clinical data before the oocyte retrieval procedure.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
How to cite this article: Wu J, Yang N. Cumulative live birth rate and perinatal outcomes of blastocyst versus cleavage-stage embryo transfer: A propensity score matching analysis. Medicine 2026;105:16(e48336).
References
- [1].Levi-Setti PE, Cirillo F, Smeraldi A, Morenghi E, Mulazzani GEG, Albani E. No advantage of fresh blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer in women under the age of 39: a randomized controlled study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:457–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Glujovsky D, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Ciapponi A, Cornelisse S, Blake D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5:CD002118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Mahmoudinia M, Sovizi B, Ebadi SMR, Zakerinasab F, Sadeghi T, Mahmoudinia M. Live birth after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology: a randomised controlled study. Int J Fertil Steril. 2024;18(Suppl 1):10–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Cobo A, de los Santos MJ, Castellò D, Gámiz P, Campos P, Remohí J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1138–46.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Zhang Y, Fu X, Gao S, et al. Preparation of the endometrium for frozen embryo transfer: an update on clinical practices. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2023;21:52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Wang P, Zhao C, Xu W, Jin X, Zhang S, Zhu H. The association between the number of oocytes retrieved and cumulative live birth rate in different female age strata. Sci Rep. 2023;13:14516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Fauque P, Zebina AM, Epelboin S, et al. Comparisons of cumulative live birth rates after embryo transfers at day 2/3 versus day 5/6: a French national study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024;49:104384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Clua E, Rodríguez I, Arroyo G, Racca A, Martínez F, Polyzos NP. Blastocyst versus cleavage embryo transfer improves cumulative live birth rates, time and cost in oocyte recipients: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44:995–1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Ma X, Wang J, Shi Y, et al. Effect of single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryo transfer on cumulative live births in women with good prognosis undergoing in vitro fertilization: multicenter randomized controlled trial. Nat Commun. 2024;15:7747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Ginström Ernstad E, Spangmose AL, Opdahl S, et al. Perinatal and maternal outcome after vitrification of blastocysts: a Nordic study in singletons from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:2282–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Ginström Ernstad E, Bergh C, Khatibi A, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcome after blastocyst transfer: a population-based registry study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:378.e1–378.e10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Spangmose AL, Ginström Ernstad E, Malchau S, et al. Obstetric and perinatal risks in 4601 singletons and 884 twins conceived after fresh blastocyst transfers: a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:805–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Siristatidis C, Papapanou M, Karageorgiou V, et al. Congenital anomaly and perinatal outcome following blastocyst- vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023;61:12–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].De Vos A, Dos Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, Verheyen G. Birthweight of singletons born after blastocyst-stage or cleavage-stage transfer: analysis of a data set from three randomized controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:127–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Oron G, Sokal-Arnon T, Son WY, et al. Extended embryo culture is not associated with increased adverse obstetric or perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:165.e1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 1987;2:705–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Gardner DK, Sakkas D. Assessment of embryo viability: the ability to select a single embryo for transfer--a review. Placenta. 2003;24:S5–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Ghobara T, Gelbaya TA, Ayeleke RO. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD003414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Saket Z, Källén K, Lundin K, Magnusson A, Bergh C. Cumulative live birth rate after IVF: trend over time and the impact of blastocyst culture and vitrification. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021:hoab021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Nagy ZP, Shapiro D, Chang CC. Vitrification of the human embryo: a more efficient and safer in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:241–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:536–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Fernández-Shaw S, Cercas R, Braña C, Villas C, Pons I. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:177–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Tian SJ, Yan CL, Yang HX, Zhou GB, Yang ZQ, Zhu SE. Vitrification solution containing DMSO and EG can induce parthenogenetic activation of in vitro matured ovine oocytes and decrease sperm penetration. Anim Reprod Sci. 2007;101:365–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Liu C, Su K, Shang W, et al. Higher implantation and live birth rates with laser zona pellucida breaching than thinning in single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer. Lasers Med Sci. 2020;35:1349–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Hardarson T, Caisander G, Sjögren A, Hanson C, Hamberger L, Lundin K. A morphological and chromosomal study of blastocysts developing from morphologically suboptimal human pre-embryos compared with control blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:399–407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Sallem A, Santulli P, Barraud-Lange V, et al. Extended culture of poor-quality supernumerary embryos improves ART outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:311–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Wang Y, Shi H, Chen L, et al. Absolute risk of adverse obstetric outcomes among twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization by maternal age. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2123634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Xue X, Li W, Li M. Optimal number of high-quality cleavage-stage embryos for extended culture to blastocyst-stage for transfer in women 38 years and older. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2023;39:2181642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].De Croo I, Colman R, De Sutter P, Tilleman K. Blastocyst transfer for all? Higher cumulative live birth chance in a blastocyst-stage transfer policy compared to a cleavage-stage transfer policy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2019;11:169–76. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Mao Y, Zeng M, Meng YM, et al. Effect of blastocyst quality on human sex ratio at birth in a single blastocyst frozen thawed embryo transfer cycle. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2023;39:2216787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [33].Chambers GM, Chughtai AA, Farquhar CM, Wang YA. Risk of preterm birth after blastocyst embryo transfer: a large population study using contemporary registry data from Australia and New Zealand. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:997–1003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Marconi N, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Perinatal outcomes in singleton live births after fresh blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis of 67 147 IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1716–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]