Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology

Background: Advances in embryo culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage-stage embryo transfer to blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. The rationale for blastocyst-stage transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates. Objectives: To determine whether blastocyst-stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfer improves the live birth rate (LBR) per fresh transfer, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage-stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfer. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from inception to October 2021. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of IVF with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer versus IVF with cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were LBR per fresh transfer and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (cCPR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), multiple pregnancy, high-order multiple pregnancy, miscarriage (all following first embryo transfer), failure to transfer embryos, and whether supernumerary embryos were frozen for transfer at a later date (frozen-thawed embryo transfer). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Main results: We included 32 RCTs (5821 couples or women). The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.51; I2 = 53%; 15 studies, 2219 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 31% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 32% and 41% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR. A post hoc analysis showed that vitrification could increase the cCPR. This is an interesting finding that warrants further investigation when more studies using vitrification are published. The CPR was also higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.39; I2 = 51%; 32 studies, 5821 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 39% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 42% and 47% will probably do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer increases multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; I2 = 30%; 19 studies, 3019 women; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rates (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.38; I2 = 24%; 22 studies, 4208 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 9% of women have a multiple pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 8% and 12% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. However, a sensitivity analysis restricted only to studies with low or 'some concerns' for risk of bias, in the subgroup of equal number of embryos transferred, showed that blastocyst transfer probably increases the multiple pregnancy rate. Embryo freezing rates (when there are frozen supernumerary embryos for transfer at a later date) were lower in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; I2 = 84%; 14 studies, 2292 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage-stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst-stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; I2 = 36%; 17 studies, 2577 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in planned fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 2% and 4% probably have no embryos transferred in planned fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitations were serious imprecision and serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation. Authors' conclusions: There is low-quality evidence for live birth and moderate-quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst-stage transfer is associated with higher rates of both than fresh cleavage-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval. Although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst-stage transfer in fresh cycles, more evidence is needed to know whether the stage of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage. They should also evaluate women with a poor prognosis to enable those undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well-informed decisions on the best treatment option available.Fil: Glujovsky, Demián. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; ArgentinaFil: Quinteiro Retamar, Andrea Marta. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; ArgentinaFil: Alvarez Sedo, Cristian Roberto. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; ArgentinaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Cornelisse, Simone. No especifíca;Fil: Blake, Deborah. No especifíca

Comparing the cumulative live birth rate of cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfers between IVF cycles:a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial (the ToF trial)

Introduction In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen-thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited. Methods and analysis We have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients' treatment burden. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals. Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register (NL 6857)

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics : a prospective, international, cohort study

Background: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score <= 3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP