Impact of having surplus blastocysts cryopreserved on the ongoing pregnancy rate following a fresh transfer

References

• Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu H, Zhao C, Xiao P, et al. Predicting the likelihood of live birth in assisted reproductive technology according to the number of oocytes retrieved and female age using a generalized additive model: a retrospective cohort analysis of 17,948 cycles. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:606231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connell MT, Richter KS, Devine K, et al. Larger oocyte cohorts maximize fresh IVF cycle birth rates and availability of surplus high-quality blastocysts for cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(5):711–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law YJ, Zhang N, Kolibianakis EM, et al. Is there an optimal number of oocytes retrieved at which live birth rates or cumulative live birth rates per aspiration are maximized after ART? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(1):83–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Reismer E, et al. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3289–3296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Abbeel E, Balaban B, Ziebe S, et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27(4):353–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivanantham S, Saravanan M, Sharma N, et al. Morphology of inner cell mass: a better predictive biomarker of blastocyst viability. PeerJ. 2022;10:e13935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HJ, Park JK, Eum JH, et al. Embryo selection based on morphological parameters in a single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycle. Reprod Sci. 2021;28(4):1060–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, et al. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):369–375.e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blais I, Koifman M, Feferkorn I, et al. Improving embryo selection by the development of a laboratory-adapted time-lapse model. F S Sci. 2021;2(2):176–197.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tartia AP, Wu CQ, Gale J, et al. Time-lapse KIDScoreD5 for prediction of embryo pregnancy potential in fresh and vitrified-warmed single-embryo transfers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(1):46–53.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, et al. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):551–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu L, Xi Q, Zhang H, et al. Blastocyst culture and cryopreservation to optimize clinical outcomes of warming cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27(2):154–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glujovsky D, et al. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5: CD002118.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, et al. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(5):583–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capalbo A, Hoffmann ER, Cimadomo D, et al. Human female meiosis revised: new insights into the mechanisms of chromosome segregation and aneuploidies from advanced genomics and time-lapse imaging. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(6):706–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, et al. Reprint of: embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(4):e71–e80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen EC, Christiansen OB, Kolte AM, et al. New insights into mechanisms behind miscarriage. BMC Med. 2013;11:154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikwar M, MacFarlane AJ, Marchetti F. Mechanisms of oocyte aneuploidy associated with advanced maternal age. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2020;785:108320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, et al. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1545–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stylianou C, Critchlow D, Brison DR, et al. Embryo morphology as a predictor of IVF success: an evaluation of the proposed UK ACE grading scheme for cleavage stage embryos. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2012;15(1):11–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• della Ragione T, Verheyen G, Papanikolaou EG, et al. Developmental stage on day-5 and fragmentation rate on day-3 can influence the implantation potential of top-quality blastocysts in IVF cycles with single embryo transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu J, Lian Y, Li M, et al. 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(12):1635–1641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu Q, Lin J, Gao H, et al. The association between embryo quality, number of transferred embryos and live birth rate after vitrified Cleavage-Stage embryos and blastocyst transfer. Front Physiol. 2020;11:930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meldrum DR, Silverberg KM, Bustillo M, et al. Success rate with repeated cycles of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(6):1005–1009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silberstein T, Trimarchi JR, Gonzalez L, et al. Pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization decreases to a Plateau with repeated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(4):1043–1045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homburg R, Meltcer S, Rabinson J, et al. Is there a limit for the number of in vitro fertilization cycles for an individual patient? Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4 Suppl):1329–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Johnston MK, et al. Lower chance of pregnancy with repeated cycles with in vitro fertilization. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(2):67–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeltzer S, Acharya K, Truong T, et al. Clinical pregnancy and live birth increase significantly with every additional blastocyst up to five and decline after that: an analysis of 16,666 first fresh single-blastocyst transfers from the society for assisted reproductive technology registry. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(5):866–873 e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeltzer S, Acharya K, Truong T, et al. Clinical pregnancy (CP) and live birth (LB) increase significantly with each additional fertilized oocyte up to nine, and CP and LB decline after that: an analysis of 15,803 first fresh in vitro fertilization cycles from the society for assisted reproductive technology registry. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):520–526 e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar