Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 4, 795-807,
April 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review
1 Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group Editorial Base, Obstetrics & Gynaecology Department, National Women’s Hospital, Auckland, 2 Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, 3 University of Auckland and 4 Fertility Plus, Auckland, New Zealand
5 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Glycoscience Research Centre, Auckland University of Technology, 24 St Paul’s St, Auckland, New Zealand. e-mail: debbie.blake{at}aut.ac.nz
This paper is based on a Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2002 (see www.CochraneLibrary.net for information) with permission from The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley and Sons. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the relative merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer, concerning the chance of pregnancy, live birth, multiple pregnancy and the factors contributing to these primary outcomes, from the best available evidence. METHODS: A systematic review employing the principles of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group was undertaken. Fourteen randomized controlled trials, all comparing day 2/3 with day 5/6 embryo transfer, were included in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: For day 2/3 versus day 5/6 transfer, there was no significant difference in the odds of pregnancy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–1.17] nor of live birth (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.48–1.42) per treated couple. These results were similar whether all trials, only trials with transfer of equal numbers of day 2/3 versus day 5/6, or only trials with transfer of fewer day 5/6 than day 2/3 embryos, were pooled. There was no significant difference in the odds of multiple pregnancy for day 2/3 versus day 5/6 transfer overall (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52–1.13) nor when fewer day 5/6 than day 2/3 embryos were transferred (day 2/3 versus day 5/6 OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.42–1.12). CONCLUSION: The current evidence fails to support a widespread change of practice from cleavage stage to blastocyst stage embryo transfer in couples undergoing IVF.
Key words: blastocyst/cleavage stage/embryo/IVF/randomized controlled trial
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Kokkali, J. Traeger-Synodinos, C. Vrettou, D. Stavrou, G.M. Jones, D.S. Cram, E. Makrakis, A.O. Trounson, E. Kanavakis, and K. Pantos Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2007; 22(5): 1443 - 1449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. G. Papanikolaou, M. Camus, E. M. Kolibianakis, L. Van Landuyt, A. Van Steirteghem, and P. Devroey In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N. Engl. J. Med., March 16, 2006; 354(11): 1139 - 1146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. G. Papanikolaou, E. D'haeseleer, G. Verheyen, H. Van de Velde, M. Camus, A. Van Steirteghem, P. Devroey, and H. Tournaye Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2005; 20(11): 3198 - 3203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-C. Arce, A. Nyboe Andersen, and J. Collins Resolving methodological and clinical issues in the design of efficacy trials in assisted reproductive technologies: a mini-review Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2005; 20(7): 1757 - 1771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. M.R. Gerris Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisal Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2005; 11(2): 105 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. GIANNINI, C. PISCITELLI, A. GIALLONARDO, M. SBRACIA, F. MORGIA, M. TORTI, M. MONTIGIANI, and M. SCHIMBERNI Number of Embryos Transferred and Implantation Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2004; 1034(1): 278 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.M. Kolibianakis, K. Zikopoulos, W. Verpoest, M. Camus, H. Joris, A.C. Van Steirteghem, and P. Devroey Should we advise patients undergoing IVF to start a cycle leading to a day 3 or a day 5 transfer? Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2550 - 2554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.M. Kolibianakis, K. Zikopoulos, J. Schiettecatte, J. Smitz, H. Tournaye, M. Camus, A.C. Van Steirteghem, and P. Devroey Profound LH suppression after GnRH antagonist administration is associated with a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rate in IVF Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2490 - 2496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.A. Blake, M. Proctor, and N.P. Johnson The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 2174 - 2174. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Wright, L. A. Schieve, A. Vahratian, and M. A. Reynolds Monozygotic twinning associated with day 5 embryo transfer in pregnancies conceived after IVF Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2004; 19(8): 1831 - 1836. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|