Euploid Day-5 Blastocysts Versus Euploid Day-6 Blastocysts — Will the Reproductive Outcomes Differ? An Observational Study

D. Rao, K. Mantravadi, V. Sharanappa
{"title":"Euploid Day-5 Blastocysts Versus Euploid Day-6 Blastocysts — Will the Reproductive Outcomes Differ? An Observational Study","authors":"D. Rao, K. Mantravadi, V. Sharanappa","doi":"10.1142/s2661318221500055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and objective: Day-5 blastocyst embryos are usually chosen for assisted reproductive therapy. We compared the reproductive outcomes of the euploid blastocysts developed on Day 5 versus Day 6. Methods: This single-center, retrospective observational study analyzed patients aged 25–45 years, who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection from December 2014 to November 2018. Depending on the day of trophectoderm biopsy, patients were categorized into Day-5 and Day-6 groups. Percentages of euploid embryos were calculated for both groups, and elective single euploid blastocysts were transferred in a frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. The study endpoints were the comparisons of the reproductive outcomes including clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), miscarriage rate (MR), and live birth rate (LBR) between Day-5 and Day-6 euploid FET groups. Results: A total of 801 embryos from 184 patients were evaluated [Day 5 ([Formula: see text]=769); Day 6 ([Formula: see text]=32); 42.45% were euploid] with the rate of euploidy in Day-5 and Day-6 groups at 42.52% and 40.62%, respectively. A total of 126 patients underwent FET with 126 elective single euploid embryos (Day 5: 117; Day 6: 9). For Day-5 versus Day-6 groups, a significantly higher IR (61.54% vs. 44.44%; [Formula: see text] = 0.0531), CPR (61.54% vs. 44.44%; [Formula: see text] = 0.0531), and LBR (61.54% vs. 33.33%; [Formula: see text] = 0.0014) were reported. Multivariate analysis on ANOVA suggested, comparable pregnancy rates at Day 5 and Day 6 ([Formula: see text] = 0.728). Conclusions: Day-5 euploid blastocysts seem to offer better reproductive outcomes than Day-6 euploid blastocysts. Further research is recommended to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of Day-6 blastocysts.","PeriodicalId":34382,"journal":{"name":"Fertility Reproduction","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility Reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s2661318221500055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Day-5 blastocyst embryos are usually chosen for assisted reproductive therapy. We compared the reproductive outcomes of the euploid blastocysts developed on Day 5 versus Day 6. Methods: This single-center, retrospective observational study analyzed patients aged 25–45 years, who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection from December 2014 to November 2018. Depending on the day of trophectoderm biopsy, patients were categorized into Day-5 and Day-6 groups. Percentages of euploid embryos were calculated for both groups, and elective single euploid blastocysts were transferred in a frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. The study endpoints were the comparisons of the reproductive outcomes including clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), miscarriage rate (MR), and live birth rate (LBR) between Day-5 and Day-6 euploid FET groups. Results: A total of 801 embryos from 184 patients were evaluated [Day 5 ([Formula: see text]=769); Day 6 ([Formula: see text]=32); 42.45% were euploid] with the rate of euploidy in Day-5 and Day-6 groups at 42.52% and 40.62%, respectively. A total of 126 patients underwent FET with 126 elective single euploid embryos (Day 5: 117; Day 6: 9). For Day-5 versus Day-6 groups, a significantly higher IR (61.54% vs. 44.44%; [Formula: see text] = 0.0531), CPR (61.54% vs. 44.44%; [Formula: see text] = 0.0531), and LBR (61.54% vs. 33.33%; [Formula: see text] = 0.0014) were reported. Multivariate analysis on ANOVA suggested, comparable pregnancy rates at Day 5 and Day 6 ([Formula: see text] = 0.728). Conclusions: Day-5 euploid blastocysts seem to offer better reproductive outcomes than Day-6 euploid blastocysts. Further research is recommended to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of Day-6 blastocysts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
5天整倍体囊胚与6天整倍体囊胚-生殖结果会不同吗?观察性研究
背景与目的:辅助生殖治疗通常选择第5天的囊胚。我们比较了第5天和第6天发育的整倍体囊胚的生殖结果。方法:本研究为单中心、回顾性观察性研究,分析了2014年12月至2018年11月25-45岁接受卵胞浆内单精子注射的患者。根据滋养外胚层活检的日期,将患者分为第5天和第6天组。计算两组整倍体胚胎的百分比,并在冷冻胚胎移植(FET)周期中移植选择性的单个整倍体囊胚。研究终点是比较第5天和第6天整倍体FET组的生殖结局,包括临床妊娠率(CPR)、着床率(IR)、流产率(MR)和活产率(LBR)。结果:184例患者共801个胚胎被评估[第5天]([公式:见文]=769);第6天([公式:见正文]=32);42.45%为整倍体,第5天和第6天整倍体率分别为42.52%和40.62%。126例患者接受了FET, 126个选择性的单整倍体胚胎(第5天:117;第5天组与第6天组相比,IR显著更高(61.54% vs. 44.44%;[公式:见正文]= 0.0531),CPR (61.54% vs. 44.44%;[公式:见文]= 0.0531),LBR (61.54% vs. 33.33%;[公式:见文]= 0.0014)。多因素方差分析显示,第5天和第6天的妊娠率可比([公式:见文]= 0.728)。结论:第5天的整倍体囊胚似乎比第6天的整倍体囊胚提供更好的生殖结果。建议进一步研究以评估第6天囊胚的生殖结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Failures: Is It the Seed or the Soil? ASPIRE Guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Laboratory Practice in Low and Medium Resource Settings How Should We Assess the Endometrium of Infertile Patients? What Does the Future Look Like? Uterine Natural Killer Cells and Implantation Wisdom of Freezing All Valuable Embryos
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1