International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Thu, Apr 25, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 20, Issue 2 (February 2022)
IJRM 2022, 20(2): 79-90 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Dashti S, Pejman A, Tabibnejad N, Mortezanasab M. The effect of transferring a poor-quality embryo together with a good-quality embryo on the singleton birth weight: A retrospective cohort study. IJRM 2022; 20 (2) :79-90
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-2399-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-2399-en.html
1- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
2- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. , nasimtabibnejad@gmail.com
2- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. , nasimtabibnejad@gmail.com
Abstract: (1191 Views)
Background: Embryo quality may affect birth weight among neonates born through assisted reproductive technology. There are very limited studies assessing the adverse effect of transferring a poor-quality embryo with a good-quality one on neonatal outcomes.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of double embryo transfer (DET) with one good-quality embryo (GQE) plus a poor-quality one on the birth weight of newborns conceived by in vitro fertilization in both fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted at Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Yazd, Iran. A total of 626 women were classified into three groups according to the embryo quality: single embryo transfer with a GQE (group A); DET using two GQEs (group B); and DET using one good-quality and one poor-quality embryo (group C). The primary outcome was singleton birth weight which was compared between the three groups among fresh and frozen-embryo transfer cycles. A comparative analysis was also performed regarding the effect of vitrification procedures on neonatal birth weight within each of the three embryo quality-based groups.
Results: The mean birth weight and the rate of preterm birth were similar between the three groups (p = 0.45, and 0.32 respectively). There were also no significant differences found in the vitrification comparative analysis between and within the groups with regard to birth weight.
Conclusion: Our results showed that a poor-quality embryo did not have a significant influence on a good-quality one regarding neonatal birth weight when transferred together.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of double embryo transfer (DET) with one good-quality embryo (GQE) plus a poor-quality one on the birth weight of newborns conceived by in vitro fertilization in both fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted at Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Yazd, Iran. A total of 626 women were classified into three groups according to the embryo quality: single embryo transfer with a GQE (group A); DET using two GQEs (group B); and DET using one good-quality and one poor-quality embryo (group C). The primary outcome was singleton birth weight which was compared between the three groups among fresh and frozen-embryo transfer cycles. A comparative analysis was also performed regarding the effect of vitrification procedures on neonatal birth weight within each of the three embryo quality-based groups.
Results: The mean birth weight and the rate of preterm birth were similar between the three groups (p = 0.45, and 0.32 respectively). There were also no significant differences found in the vitrification comparative analysis between and within the groups with regard to birth weight.
Conclusion: Our results showed that a poor-quality embryo did not have a significant influence on a good-quality one regarding neonatal birth weight when transferred together.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Embryology
References
1. Berntsen S, Söderström-Anttila V, Wennerholm UB, Laivuori H, Loft A, Oldereid NB, et al. The health of children conceived by ART: The chicken or the egg? Hum Reprod Update 2019; 25: 137-158. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmz001] [PMID]
2. Zhang J, Huang J, Liu H, Wang B, Yang X, Shen X, et al. The impact of embryo quality on singleton birthweight in vitrified-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles. Hum Reprod 2020; 35: 308-316. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dez287] [PMID]
3. Zhang J, Wang Y, Liu H, Mao X, Chen Q, Fan Y, et al. Effect of in vitro culture period on birth weight after vitrified-warmed transfer cycles: Analysis of 4,201 singleton newborns. Fertil Steril 2019; 111: 97-104. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.006] [PMID]
4. Anav M, Phillips S, Ferrieres-Hoa A, Gala A, Fournier A, Vincens C, et al. Cryopreserved embryo replacement is associated with higher birthweight compared with fresh embryo: Multicentric sibling embryo cohort study. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 13402. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-49708-7] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update 2018; 24: 35-58. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmx031] [PMID]
6. Barker DJP. The developmental origins of adult disease. J Am Coll Nutr 2004; 23 (Suppl.): 588-595. [DOI:10.1080/07315724.2004.10719428] [PMID]
7. Depa-Martynow M, Jedrzejczak P, Pawelczyk L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo quality in in vitro fertilization program. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2007; 45 (Suppl.): 85-89.
8. Fasano G, Fontenelle N, Vannin AS, Biramane J, Devreker F, Englert Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 241-247. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-013-0145-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Eftekhar M, Mohammadian F, Yousefnejad F, Molaei B, Aflatoonian A. Comparison of conventional IVF versus ICSI in non-male factor, normoresponder patients. Iran J Reprod Med 2012; 10: 131-136. [DOI:10.18502/ijrm.v10i2.9056] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. Dobson SJA, Lao MT, Michael E, Varghese AC, Jayaprakasan K. Effect of transfer of a poor quality embryo along with a top quality embryo on the outcome during fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 655-660. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.010] [PMID]
11. Roberts SA, Hirst WM, Brison DR, Vail A. Embryo and uterine influences on IVF outcomes: An analysis of a UK multi-centre cohort. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 2792-2802. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deq213] [PMID]
12. Van den Abbeel E, Balaban B, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Cuesta MJ, Klein BM, et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27: 353-361. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.07.006] [PMID]
13. Oron G, Son WY, Buckett W, Tulandi T, Holzer H. The association between embryo quality and perinatal outcome of singletons born after single embryo transfers: A pilot study. Hum Reprod 2014; 29: 1444-1451. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deu079] [PMID]
14. Sun Y, Li E, Feng G, Li M, Fu Y, You J, et al. Influence of cleavage-stage embryo quality on the in-vitro fertilization outcome after single embryo transfer in fresh cycles. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 59: 872-876. [DOI:10.1016/j.tjog.2020.08.003] [PMID]
15. Zhu J, Lian Y, Li M, Chen L, Liu P, Qiao J. Does IVF cleavage stage embryo quality affect pregnancy complications and neonatal outcomes in singleton gestations after double embryo transfers? J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 1635-1641. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-014-0351-8] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Huang J, Tao Y, Zhang J, Yang X, Wu J, Kuang Y, et al. Poor embryo quality is associated with a higher risk of low birthweight in vitrified-warmed single embryo transfer cycles. Front Physiol 2020; 11: 415. [DOI:10.3389/fphys.2020.00415] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Aldemir O, Ozelci R, Baser E, Kaplanoglu I, Dilbaz S, Dilbaz B, et al. Impact of transferring a poor quality embryo along with a good quality embryo on pregnancy outcomes in IVF/ICSI cycles: A retrospective study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2020; 80: 844-850. [DOI:10.1055/a-1213-9164] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Demirel C, Goksever Celik H, Tulek F, Tuysuz G, Donmez E, Ergin T, et al. The impact of a poor quality embryo on the implantation chance of a good quality one when transferred together: A study on double blastocyst transfers. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021; 50: 101967. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101967] [PMID]
19. Li J, Du M, Zhang Z, Guan Y, Wang X, Zhang X, et al. Does a poor-quality embryo have an adverse impact on a good-quality embryo when transferred together? J Ovarian Res 2018; 11: 78. [DOI:10.1186/s13048-018-0452-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Wang W, Cai J, Liu L, Xu Y, Liu Z, Chen J, et al. Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo with a good quality embryo benefit poor prognosis patients? Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2020; 18: 97. [DOI:10.1186/s12958-020-00656-2] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Wintner EM, Hershko-Klement A, Tzadikevitch K, Ghetler Y, Gonen O, Wintner O, et al. Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo together with a good quality embryo affect the in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome? J Ovarian Res 2017; 10: 2. [DOI:10.1186/s13048-016-0297-9] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Mäkinen S, Söderström-Anttila V, Vainio J, Suikkari AM, Tuuri T. Does long in vitro culture promote large for gestational age babies? Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 828-834. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/des410] [PMID]
23. Stokes PJ, Abeydeera LR, Leese HJ. Development of porcine embryos in vivo and in vitro; evidence for embryo 'cross talk' in vitro. Dev Biol 2005; 284: 62-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.05.001] [PMID]
24. Tao T, Robichaud A, Mercier J, Ouellette R. Influence of group embryo culture strategies on the blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30: 63-68. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-012-9892-x] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
