Frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles in China: clinical outcomes of two and three multicellular embryos transfers

ESHRE guideline: number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION

Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).

Comparison of clinical outcomes among dual ovarian stimulation, mild stimulation and luteal phase stimulation protocols in women with poor ovarian response

This study aimed to determine whether consecutive ovarian stimulation in follicular and luteal phases within a single menstrual cycle (dual stimulation) is achievable and superior to conventional stimulation for poor ovarian responders (PORs). Data of 260 PORs were retrospectively collected and divided into three groups. Group A comprised of cycles with dual ovarian stimulation (n = 76), which were divided into two subgroups (follicular [group A-F] and luteal phase stimulation [group A-L]); group B comprised of cycles with ovarian stimulation that was performed only in the luteal phase (n = 52). Group C comprised of mild ovarian stimulation cycles (n = 132). Baseline parameters were not different among the three groups. The numbers of oocytes and embryo obtained were less in group A-F than group B and C, while group A overall had significantly more oocytes and viable embryo retrieved than did group B and C. Group A-L consumed significantly less gonadotropin than group B, without compromising the number of retrieved oocytes and embryo. The pregnancy outcomes of transfer of embryo from different stimulation phases were similar. We conclude that dual ovarian stimulation protocol is effective and potentially optimal for PORs.

Clinical outcomes of frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer in patients requiring whole embryo freezing

We compared clinical outcomes amongst frozen-thawed cleavage-stage embryo, double and single blastocyst transfers in patients requiring whole embryo freezing. Data of infertile patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in our Reproductive Medicine Center from January 2010 to December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. According to patients' wishes, patients were divided into cleavage-stage embryo transfer groups (group A, n = 456), double blastocyst transfer group (group B, n = 106), and single blastocyst transfer group (group C, n = 402). We found that the number of frozen embryos was significantly less in groups B and C than in group A (all p < 0.05), but the implantation rate was significantly higher in groups B and C as compared to group A (all p < 0.05). The clinical pregnancy rate and pregnancy rate per included cycle were significantly higher in group B than in groups A and C (all p < 0.05). The multiple pregnancy rate was significantly lower in group C than in groups A and B (all p < 0.05). The rate of early abortion was significantly lower in group C as compared to group A (p < 0.05). The data support the view that it may be the best clinical strategy for patients who require whole embryo freezing and have four or more Day 3 embryos available, to incubate Day 3 embryos into blastocysts, which are then vitrified for elective single blastocyst transfer.

Vitrification of in vitro matured oocytes diminishes embryo development potential before but not after embryo genomic activation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of oocyte vitrification on embryo development potential and to assess the chromosome abnormalities of blastocysts derived from fresh/vitrified-warmed oocytes to assure the safety of the oocyte cryopreservation technique.

METHODS

In vitro matured oocytes derived from immature oocytes were retrieved from small follicles during IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were randomly divided into a fresh and vitrified-warmed groups. After intracytoplasmic sperm injection, the fertilization rate, embryo quality, and developmental status were compared between the two groups. Blastocysts derived from both groups were analyzed using the copy number variation (CNV)-seq technique to evaluate DNA abnormalities.

RESULTS

The fertilization rate with ICSI and the cleavage rate were similar between the two groups. Among the vitrified-warmed group, there was a lower incidence of usable embryos on day 3 (16.42 vs. 28.57 %; P < 0.05) and a lower incidence of blastocysts (7.46 vs. 17.86 %; P < 0.05). However, the proportions of embryos that developed to blastocysts from the day 3 available embryos were similar between the two groups (62.5 vs. 45.45 %; P > 0.05). In the day 3 embryos, the proportion of >5 cell embryos in the fresh group was markedly higher than in the vitrified-warmed group (41.67 vs. 21.64 %; P < 0.05), and the proportion of embryos with ≧50 % fragments was not significantly different between the two groups (39.29 vs. 43.28 %; P > 0.05). The result of CNV-seq demonstrated that there was no difference in chromosomal abnormalities between the two groups (20 vs. 20 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Oocyte vitrification and the warming procedure diminished the embryo development potential before day 3, when embryo genomic activation started. The day 3 usable embryos derived from vitrified-warmed oocytes had the same potential for developing into blastocysts. Vitrification and the warming procedure did not increase the chromosome abnormalities of the blastocysts. Oocyte vitrification is a safe technique for those patients who have no other options, although the oocyte efficiency may be diminished after the vitrified-warmed procedure.

Vitrification of day 3 cleavage-stage embryos yields better clinical outcome in comparison with vitrification of day 2 cleavage-stage embryos

The objective of this retrospective study was to determine an optimal time point for vitrification of cleavage-stage human embryos. This study included patients who were undergoing day 2 or day 3 vitrified–warmed cleavage-stage embryo transfer at the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Programme of the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, China, affiliated to the Tongji University School of Medicine, from April 2010 to March 2012. Intervention was made for the entire cohort of vitrified embryos for poor responder patients so as to avoid severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Embryo survival rate (SR) after vitrification–warming, implantation rate (IR), and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) were the main outcome measurements. In total, 380 vitrified–warmed cleavage-stage embryo transfer (VWT) cycles were included. We found that the SR after vitrification and warming for day 2 embryos and day 3 embryos were 92.7% and 92.8%, respectively. For poor ovarian responders, the IR of day 2 and day 3 vitrified–warmed embryos was 6.4% and 13.2%, respectively (P = 0.186). The CPR for day 3 vitrified–warmed embryos was significantly higher than that of day 2 vitrified–warmed embryos (17.6 vs. 4.0 % per transfer cycle, P = 0.036). For patients who had their entire cohort of embryos vitrified to prevent severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), the IR and CPR were not significantly different for day 2 and day 3 vitrified–warmed embryo transfer. In conclusion, for vitrified–warmed embryo transfer, cryopreservation of the entire cohort of embryos on day 3 resulted in better clinical outcomes compared with cryopreservation on day 2. Therefore, it is highly recommended that cleavage-stage embryos should be vitrified on day 3, but not on day 2, particularly for poor ovarian responder patients.