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

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. 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. 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. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of IVF with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer versus IVF with cleavage-stage embryo transfer. 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. 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. 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.

Glujovsky D ，Quinteiro Retamar AM ，Alvarez Sedo CR ，Ciapponi A ，Cornelisse S ，Blake D ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

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

Glujovsky D ，Farquhar C ，Quinteiro Retamar AM ，Alvarez Sedo CR ，Blake D ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection.

Transfer of more than one embryo during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) increases multiple pregnancy rates resulting in an increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer offers a means of minimising this risk, but this potential gain needs to be balanced against the possibility of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR). To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 2020. We handsearched reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. We also communicated with experts in the field regarding any additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or ICSI in infertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one to four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were LBR and multiple pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. We analysed data using risk ratios (RR), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and a fixed effect model. We included 17 RCTs in the review (2505 women). The main limitation was inadequate reporting of study methods and moderate to high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. A majority of the studies had low numbers of participants. None of the trials compared repeated single embryo transfer (SET) with multiple embryo transfer. Reported results of multiple embryo transfer below refer to double embryo transfer. Repeated single embryo transfer versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle Repeated SET was compared with double embryo transfer (DET) in four studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET (three studies). The cumulative live birth rate after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET (RR 0.95, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.82 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 42% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the repeated SET would yield pregnancy rates between 34% and 46%. The multiple pregnancy rate associated with repeated SET is probably reduced compared to a single cycle of DET (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 13% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 3%. The clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 47%; 3 studies, 943 participants; low-quality evidence) after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET. There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. Single versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle A single cycle of SET was compared with a single cycle of DET in 13 studies, 11 comparing cleavage-stage transfers and three comparing blastocyst-stage transfers.One study reported both cleavage and blastocyst stage transfers. Low-quality evidence suggests that the live birth rate per woman may be reduced in women who have SET in comparison with those who have DET (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; I² = 0%; 12 studies, 1904 participants; low-quality evidence). Thus, for a woman with a 46% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 27% and 35%. The multiple pregnancy rate per woman is probably lower in those who have SET than those who have DET (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.22; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 1952 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 2% and 4%. Low-quality evidence suggests that the clinical pregnancy rate may be lower in women who have SET than in those who have DET (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1860 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. Although DET achieves higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per fresh cycle, the evidence suggests that the difference in effectiveness may be substantially offset when elective SET is followed by a further transfer of a single embryo in fresh or frozen cycle, while simultaneously reducing multiple pregnancies, at least among women with a good prognosis. The quality of evidence was low to moderate primarily due to inadequate reporting of study methods and absence of masking those delivering, as well as receiving the interventions.

Kamath MS ，Mascarenhas M ，Kirubakaran R ，Bhattacharya S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes.

A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration. To evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR). The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects. Thirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision. Stimulated versus programmed cycle We are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Stimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I2 = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported. Natural versus programmed cycle We are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I2 = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes. Transdermal versus oral oestrogens From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I2 = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported. Day of starting administration of progestogen When doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control A cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I2 = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I2 = 4%). No study reported other outcomes. Among different GnRH agonists From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. GnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists GnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes. Aspirin versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET. Steroids versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. There is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle. In fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.

Glujovsky D ，Pesce R ，Sueldo C ，Quinteiro Retamar AM ，Hart RJ ，Ciapponi A ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation.

In in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), selection of the most competent embryo(s) for transfer is based on morphological criteria. However, many women do not achieve a pregnancy even after 'good quality' embryo transfer. One of the presumed causes is that such morphologically normal embryos have an abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies). Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), was therefore developed as an alternative method to select embryos for transfer in IVF. In PGT-A, the polar body or one or a few cells of the embryo are obtained by biopsy and tested. Only polar bodies and embryos that show a normal number of chromosomes are transferred. The first generation of PGT-A, using cleavage-stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for the genetic analysis, was demonstrated to be ineffective in improving live birth rates. Since then, new PGT-A methodologies have been developed that perform the biopsy procedure at other stages of development and use different methods for genetic analysis. Whether or not PGT-A improves IVF outcomes and is beneficial to patients has remained controversial. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PGT-A in women undergoing an IVF treatment. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2019 and checked the references of appropriate papers. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on clinical outcomes in participants undergoing IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR). Secondary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) after the first embryo transfer, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, proportion of women reaching an embryo transfer, and mean number of embryos per transfer. We included 13 trials involving 2794 women. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of publication bias. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses Polar body biopsy One trial used polar body biopsy with array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH). It is uncertain whether the addition of PGT-A by polar body biopsy increases the cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.66, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed cLBR of 24% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 17% and 34%. It is uncertain whether the LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A by polar body biopsy (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.79, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). PGT-A with polar body biopsy may reduce miscarriage rate (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate were available. The effect of PGT-A by polar body biopsy on improving clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). Blastocyst stage biopsy One trial used blastocyst stage biopsy with next-generation sequencing. It is uncertain whether IVF with the addition of PGT-A by blastocyst stage biopsy increases cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A, since no data were available. It is uncertain if LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy reduces miscarriage rate (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate or clinical pregnancy rate were available. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis Eleven trials were included in this comparison. It is uncertain whether IVF with addition of PGT-A increases cLBR (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 1 RCT, N = 408, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average cLBR of 29% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 12% and 29%. PGT-A performed with FISH probably reduces live births after the first transfer compared to the control group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91, 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 54%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average LBR per first transfer of 31% in the control group, the chance of live birth after the first embryo transfer with PGT-A is between 16% and 29%. There is probably little or no difference in miscarriage rate between PGT-A and the control group (OR 1.03, 95%, CI 0.75 to 1.41; 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 16%; moderate-quality evidence). The addition of PGT-A may reduce ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, N = 1121, I² = 60%, low-quality evidence) and probably reduces clinical pregnancies (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, 5 RCTs, N = 1131; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There is insufficient good-quality evidence of a difference in cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate after the first embryo transfer, or miscarriage rate between IVF with and IVF without PGT-A as currently performed. No data were available on ongoing pregnancy rates. The effect of PGT-A on clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain. Women need to be aware that it is uncertain whether PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses is an effective addition to IVF, especially in view of the invasiveness and costs involved in PGT-A. PGT-A using FISH for the genetic analysis is probably harmful. The currently available evidence is insufficient to support PGT-A in routine clinical practice.

Cornelisse S ，Zagers M ，Kostova E ，Fleischer K ，van Wely M ，Mastenbroek S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》