Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cleavage vs blastocyst stage embryos: how are they interrelating?

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the variables that may predict which cleavage-stage embryo may develop into a blastocyst, and vice versa, to determine whether the cleavage-stage embryo morphology should be taken into consideration when transferring the embryo at the blastocyst stage.

Methods

A single center, retrospective cohort study. The study cohort included 3072 patients undergoing 3607 retrieval cycles and 23,124 embryos at the cleavage stage. We assessed the blastulation rate and evaluated which variables impact the ongoing pregnancy rate.

Results

High blastulation rate correlates with higher embryos' grading (I > II > III > IV > V) and higher number of blastomeres (8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4). 949 patients had fresh single blastocyst transfers. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 28.9% per transfer. Patients with ongoing pregnancies were significantly younger (34.3 vs. 36 years, p < 0.001), had higher number of oocyte yield (9.8 vs. 9, p = 0.02), and an increased rate of good-quality embryos transferred (70.7% vs. 47.7%, p = 0.001). When evaluating embryos progression, we found that whenever embryo developed to a good-quality blastocyst, its appearance at the cleavage stage did not affect ongoing pregnancy rate.

Conclusion

Higher the number of blastomeres and better embryo grading were found to correlate with a higher blastulation rate. Nevertheless, if the embryo has already developed to a top-quality blastocyst, its morphology at the cleavage stage did not impact ongoing pregnancy rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Majumdar G et al (2017) Relationship between morphology, euploidy and implantation potential of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. J Hum Reprod Sci 10(1):49–57

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. De Vos A et al (2016) Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod 31(11):2442–2449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Glujovsky D et al (2016) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD002118

    Google Scholar 

  4. Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, Van Der Poel SZ, Gracia CR, Racowsky C (2016) Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 31(11):2561–2569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Racowsky C et al (2000) The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 73(3):558–564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Xiao JS et al (2019) When only one embryo is available, is it better to transfer on day 3 or to grow on? Reprod Biomed Online 39(6):916–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Haas J et al (2019) What is the optimal timing of embryo transfer when there are only one or two embryos at cleavage stage? Gynecol Endocrinol 35(8):665–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Heitmann RJ et al (2013) The simplified SART embryo scoring system is highly correlated to implantation and live birth in single blastocyst transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 30(4):563–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrenetxea G et al (2005) Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril 83(1):49–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Karaki RZ et al (2002) Blastocyst culture and transfer: a step toward improved in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 77(1):114–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schroder AK et al (2004) Cumulative pregnancy rates and drop-out rates in a German IVF programme: 4102 cycles in 2130 patients. Reprod Biomed Online 8(5):600–606

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Glujovsky D et al (2012) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD002118

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schwarzler P et al (2004) Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 19(9):2097–2102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhao H et al (2020) Clinical outcomes following frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers with blastocysts derived from different cell numbers on day 3: a retrospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet 37(3):641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shapiro BS, Harris DC, Richter KS (2000) Predictive value of 72-h blastomere cell number on blastocyst development and success of subsequent transfer based on the degree of blastocyst development. Fertil Steril 73(3):582–586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Luna M et al (2008) Human blastocyst morphological quality is significantly improved in embryos classified as fast on day 3 (> or = 10 cells), bringing into question current embryological dogma. Fertil Steril 89(2):358–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vermey BG et al (2019) Is there an association between oocyte number and embryo quality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 39(5):751–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van Loendersloot LL et al (2010) Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 16(6):577–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Verberg MF et al (2009) The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 15(1):5–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sunkara SK et al (2011) Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 26(7):1768–1774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Aizer A, Haas J, Shimon C, Konopnicki S, Barzilay E, Orvieto R (2020) Is there any association between the number of oocytes retrieved, women age, and embryo development? Reprod Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-020-00391-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Eran Zilberberg, Eran Barzilay, Adva Aizer, Michal Kirshenbaum, Raoul Orvieto & Jigal Haas

  2. TRIO Fertility, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Eran Zilberberg, Robert Casper, Jim Meriano & Jigal Haas

  3. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada

    Robert Casper

  4. Division of Reproductive Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Robert Casper

Authors
  1. Eran Zilberberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Casper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jim Meriano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eran Barzilay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adva Aizer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michal Kirshenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Raoul Orvieto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jigal Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EZ: principal investigator, designed the study, wrote the paper and edited it in all its revisions. RC and RO: participated in designing the study, retrieved the data, performed the statistical evaluations, proof read the paper and took part in discussions regarding the results. AV: retrieved the data, proof read the paper and took part in discussions regarding the results. EB: retrieved the data, proof read the paper and took part in discussions regarding the results. JM: retrieved the data, proof read the paper and took part in discussions regarding the results. JH: participated in designing the study, assisted in writing the paper and edited it, proof read the paper and took part in discussions regarding the results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jigal Haas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board, Veritas IRB 16304-17 on February 5th, 2019.

Informed consent

It was a retrospective study and therefore informed consent was not needed. This retrospective study included 3607 women undergoing IVF during the years 2016–2018 and the patients are not ongoing treatments in the present. We collected the data from our databases and did not perform any intervention.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zilberberg, E., Casper, R., Meriano, J. et al. Cleavage vs blastocyst stage embryos: how are they interrelating?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 304, 1083–1088 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06003-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06003-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation