Are all day 6 blastocysts inferior to day 5 blastocysts? A retrospective study comparing reproductive outcomes between day 5 and day 6 good quality blastocysts in various clinical scenarios
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260553Keywords:
Blastocysts, Frozen embryo transfer, Factors, InfertilityAbstract
Background: Day 5 (D5) blastocysts have a better reproductive outcome than Day 6 (D6) blastocysts in fresh cycle transfer. However, conflicting results were observed in frozen embryo transfers (FET), primarily due to presence of multiple confounding factors. The aim of study was to compare reproductive outcomes between D5 and D6 good quality blastocysts in FET in different clinical scenarios causing infertility - female, male, unexplained and combined (male and female) factors.
Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at multiple chains of a private fertility center. A total of 16,996 D5 and 4,382 D6 good quality blastocysts were included. Clinical Pregnancy Rates (CPR), Implantation Rates (IR), Miscarriage Rates (MR) and Biochemical Pregnancy Rates (BPR) were compared in four different scenarios.
Results: In female factor, D5 blastocysts have better CPR (60.85% vs 47.95%) and IR (47.15% vs 36.13%) compared to D6 blastocysts. Similar outcomes were observed in unexplained factors where D5 blastocysts had better CPR (59.64% vs 45.83%) and IR (45.63% vs 33.08%) than D6 blastocysts. In male factor, CPR (53.61 % vs 49.79%) and IR (40.12% vs 39.96%) were comparable between D5 and D6 blastocysts. Similar comparable rates were found in combined causes - CPR (51.26% vs 48.97%) and IR (39.45% vs 37.78%).
Conclusions: Reproductive outcomes were better in D5 than D6 blastocysts in female and unexplained factors. The results were comparable in male and combined factors indicating that not all D6 blastocysts can be considered inferior to D5 blastocysts.
References
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.02.001
Tiegs AW, Sun L, Patounakis G, Scott RT. Worth the wait? Day 7 blastocysts have lower euploidy rates but similar sustained implantation rates as day 5 and day 6 blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(9):1632-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez138
Tannus S, Cohen Y, Henderson S, Al Ma'mari N, Shavit T, Son WY, Dahan MH. Fresh transfer of day 5 slow-growing embryos versus deferred transfer of vitrified, fully expanded day 6 blastocysts: which is the optimal approach? Hum Reprod. 2019;34(1):44-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey351
Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Restrepo H, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):389-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.044
Bourdon M, Pocate-Cheriet K, Finet de Bantel A, Grzegorczyk-Martin V, Amar Hoffet A, Arbo E, et al. Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Human Reproduct. 2019;34(10):1948-64.
Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman L, Attaran M, Goldberg JM, Austin C, et al. Delayed blastulation, multinucleation, and expansion grade are independently associated with live birth rates in frozen blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1370-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1095
Sciorio R, Thong KJ, Pickering SJ. Increased pregnancy outcome after day 5 versus day 6 transfers of human vitrified-warmed blastocysts. Zygote. 2019;27(5):279-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199419000273
Ferreux L, Bourdon M, Sallem A, Santulli P, BARraud-Lange V, Le Foll N, et al. Live birth rate following frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer is higher with blastocysts expanded on day 5 than on day 6. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(3):390-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey004
Sunkara SK, Siozos A, Bolton VN, Khalaf Y, Braude PR, El Toukhy T. The influence of delayed blastocyst formation on the outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(8):1906-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq143
El-Toukhy T, Wharf E, Walavalkar R, Singh A, Bolton V, Khalaf Y, et al. Delayed blastocyst development does not influence the outcome of frozen-thawed transfer cycles. BJOG. 2011;118(13):1551-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03101.x
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: infertility and genetics beyond 1999. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999:378-88.
Fatemi HM, Kyrou D, Bourgain C, Van den Abbeel E, Gries inger G, Devroey P. Cryopreserved-thawed human embryo transfer: spontaneous natural cycle is superior to human chorionic gonadotropin-induced natural cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2054-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.036
Davis O, Zaninovic N, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. Morphologic grading of euploid blastocysts influences implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):664-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.012
Lee CI, Chen CH, Huang CC, Cheng EH, Chen HH, Ho ST, et al. Embryo morphokinetics is potentially associated with clinical outcomes of single-embryo transfers in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;39(4):569-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.05.020
Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, Casciani V, Scar selli F, et al. Cor relation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Human Reproduction. 2016;31(10):2245-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew183
Abdala A, Elkhatib I, Bayram A, Arnanz A, El-Damen A, Melado L, et al. Day 5 vs day 6 single euploid blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: which variables do have an impact on the clinical pregnancy rates?. J Assis Reproduct Genet. 2022;39(2):379-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02380-1
Jiang Y, Song G, Zhang XH, Miao SB, Wu XH. Frozen blastocysts: Assessing the importance of day 5/ day 6 blastocysts or blastocyst quality. Exp Ther Med. 2022;23(5):333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2022.11262
Bourdon M, Pocate-Cheriet K, Finet de Bantel A, Grzegorczyk-Martin V, Amar Hoffet A, Arbo E. Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(10):1948-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez163
Thomas C, Cavazza T, Schuh M. Aneuploidy in human eggs: contributions of the meiotic spindle. Biochem Soc Trans. 2021;49(1):107-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20200043
Homer HA. The role of oocyte quality in Explaining “Unexplained” Infertility. Semin Reprod Med. 2020;38(1):21-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721377
Tong J, Niu Y, Wan A, Zhang T. Comparison of day 5 blastocyst with day 6 blastocyst: Evidence from NGS-based PGT-A results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;10;39(2):369-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02397-0
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
