Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

  • 제43권2호
  • /
  • Pages.133-138
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2233-8233(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-8241(eISSN)
대한생식의학회 (The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reproductive outcomes of retransferring retained embryos in blastocyst transfer cycles

  • Yi, Hyun Jeong (Ilsan-Cheil General Hospital) ;
  • Koo, Hwa Seon (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine) ;
  • Cha, Sun Hwa (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hye Ok (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Chan Woo (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine) ;
  • Song, In Ok (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2016.04.08
  • 심사 : 2016.05.14
  • 발행 : 2016.06.23
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To determine the incidence of embryo retention (ER) in the transfer catheter following embryo transfer (ET) in blastocyst transfer and investigate whether retransferring retained embryos has an impact on reproductive outcomes in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-ET. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 1,131 blastocyst transfers, which comprised 223 single blastocyst transfer (SBT) and 908 double blastocyst transfer (DBT) cycles. Each SBT and DBT group was classified depending on whether ET was performed without retained embryos in the catheter during the first attempt (without-ER group) or whether any retained embryos were found following ET (ER group) for the purpose of comparing reproductive outcomes in a homogenous population. Results: The overall incidence of finding retained embryos was 2.8% (32/1,131). There were no retained embryos in SBT cycles. In DBT cycles, implantation rates (30.0% vs. 26.6%), positive ${\beta}-hCG$ rates (57.2% vs. 56.2%), clinical pregnancy rates (45.3% vs. 46.9%), and live birth rates (38.9% vs. 43.8%) were not significantly different between the without-ER and ER groups. There were no significant differences in the mean birth weight (g) $2,928.4{\pm}631.8$ vs. $2,948.7{\pm}497.8$ and the mean gestational age at birth ($269.3{\pm}17.2days$ vs. $264.2{\pm}25.7days$). A total of nine cases of congenital birth defects were found in this study population. Eight were observed in the without-ER group and one in the ER group. Conclusion: Our results suggest that retransfer of retained embryos does not have any adverse impact on reproductive outcomes in blastocyst transfer cycles. Furthermore, our results support finding that SBT might be advantageous for decreasing the incidence of retained embryos in catheters.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Neithardt AB, Segars JH, Hennessy S, James AN, McKeeby JL. Embryo afterloading: a refinement in embryo transfer technique that may increase clinical pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2005;83:710-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.022
  2. Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA. Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1149-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.5.1149
  3. Lee HC, Seifer DB, Shelden RM. Impact of retained embryos on the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2004;82:334-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.01.035
  4. Nabi A, Awonuga A, Birch H, Barlow S, Stewart B. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: does this affect in-vitro fertilization treatment outcome? Hum Reprod 1997;12:1188-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.6.1188
  5. Tur-Kaspa I, Yuval Y, Bider D, Levron J, Shulman A, Dor J. Difficult or repeated sequential embryo transfers do not adversely affect in-vitro fertilization pregnancy rates or outcome. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2452-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.9.2452
  6. Silberstein T, Trimarchi JR, Shackelton R, Weitzen S, Frankfurter D, Plosker S. Ultrasound-guided miduterine cavity embryo transfer is associated with a decreased incidence of retained embryos in the transfer catheter. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1510-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.06.023
  7. Visser DS, Fourie FL, Kruger HF. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: effect on pregnancy outcome in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993;10:37-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204438
  8. Vicdan K, Isik AZ, Akarsu C, Sozen E, Caglar G, Dingiloglu B, et al. The effect of retained embryos on pregnancy outcome in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;134:79-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.01.011
  9. Cruz JR, Dubey AK, Patel J, Peak D, Hartog B, Gindoff PR. Is blastocyst transfer useful as an alternative treatment for patients with multiple in vitro fertilization failures? Fertil Steril 1999;72:218-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00258-7
  10. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1155-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00518-5
  11. Butterworth S. Blastocyst culture: myth or magic? Hum Fertil(Camb) 2001;4:109-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464727012000199391
  12. Sheiner E, Har-Vardi I, Potashnik G. The potential association between blastocyst transfer and monozygotic twinning. Fertil Steril 2001;75:217-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01635-6
  13. Milki AA, Jun SH, Hinckley MD, Behr B, Giudice LC, Westphal LM. Incidence of monozygotic twinning with blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage-stage transfer. Fertil Steril 2003;79:503-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04754-4
  14. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK. Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril 2001;76:863-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02731-5
  15. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: fertility and genetics beyond 1999. Pearl River: Parthenon;1999. p. 378-88.
  16. Dimeglio A, Bensahel H, Souchet P, Mazeau P, Bonnet F. Classification of clubfoot. J Pediatr Orthop B 1995;4:129-36. https://doi.org/10.1097/01202412-199504020-00002
  17. Facchinetti F, Matteo ML, Artini GP, Volpe A, Genazzani AR. An increased vulnerability to stress is associated with a poor outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer treatment. Fertil Steril 1997;67:309-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81916-4
  18. Gallinelli A, Roncaglia R, Matteo ML, Ciaccio I, Volpe A, Facchinetti F. Immunological changes and stress are associated with different implantation rates in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2001;76:85-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01826-X
  19. Smeenk JM, Verhaak CM, Eugster A, van Minnen A, Zielhuis GA, Braat DD. The effect of anxiety and depression on the outcome of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1420-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.7.1420
  20. Skiadas CC, Missmer SA, Benson CB, Gee RE, Racowsky C. Risk factors associated with pregnancies containing a monochorionic pair following assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1366-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den045
  21. Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2381-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.066
  22. Schwarzler P, Zech H, Auer M, Pfau K, Gobel G, Vanderzwalmen P, et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2097-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh398
  23. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril 2010;94:1680-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.027

피인용 문헌

  1. National Survey Highlights the Urgent Need for Standardisation of Embryo Transfer Techniques in the UK vol.10, pp.13, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132839