Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Analysis of In Vitro Fertilization—Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Results from Fresh Day 2 and Day 3 Embryo Transfers at a Tertiary In Vitro Fertilization Center

Rohan Palshetkar, Hrishikesh Pai, Biswanath G Dastidar, Jiteeka Thakkar, Nikita Lad

Keywords : Clinical pregnancy rate, Day 3, Embryo transfer, In vitro fertilization

Citation Information : Palshetkar R, Pai H, Dastidar BG, Thakkar J, Lad N. Analysis of In Vitro Fertilization—Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Results from Fresh Day 2 and Day 3 Embryo Transfers at a Tertiary In Vitro Fertilization Center. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2019; 11 (1):58-60.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1650

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Embryo transfers (ET) on day 2 or day 3 following fertilization have been the standard of practice since the initial days of human in vitro fertilization (IVF). Recent advances in culture media, as well as embryo culture techniques, have prompted in a shift in strategy to day 5 blastocyst transfers following IVF. However blastocyst transfers, although resulting in slightly better pregnancy rate, are known to be associated with certain disadvantages, such as higher costs, higher cycle cancellation rates, and in vitro damage to embryos. Thus we reviewed our results with day 2 and day 3 ETs to see whether outcomes were adequate to justify a return to day 3 embryo transfer policy. Our data shows a 46% clinical pregnancy rate and 1.9% incidence of multiple pregnancy rate with cleavage transfers. Thus in our setting with a lot of poor resource patients, we feel day 2 or 3 transfer provides a good strategy for IVF cycles.

PDF Share
  1. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, Regional, and Global Trends in Infertility Prevalence Since 1990: A Systematic Analysis of 277 Health Surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9:12.
  2. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Vol. 116, Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 1992. p. 321
  3. Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, De Mouzon J, Erb K, Mocanu E, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(10):1957-1973.
  4. Germond M, Wirthner D, Senn A, Calhaz-Jorge C, Castilla JA, Cohen J, et al. Core data for assisted reproductive technology registers: Results of a consensus meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):834-840.
  5. George K, Mangalraj A, Muthukumar K, Aleyamma T, Kamath M. Blastocyst stage transfer vs cleavage stage embryo transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci [Internet]. 2009;2(1):23.
  6. Dessolle L, Fréour T, Barrire P, Daraï E, Ravel C, Jean M, et al. A cycle-based model to predict blastocyst transfer cancellation. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):598-604.
  7. Fernández-Gonzalez R, Ramirez MA, Bilbao A, De Fonseca FR, Gutiérrez-Adán A. Suboptimal in vitro culture conditions: An epigenetic origin of long-term health effects. Mol Reprod Dev. 2007;74(9):1149-1156.
  8. Xin Z, Zhu H, Jin H, Song W, Sun Y. Pregnancy outcomes of day 5 embryo transfer in patients at high risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and analysis of factors affecting blastocyst formation. J Int Med Res. 2013;41(4):1127.
  9. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: New thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;21(4):411-426.
  10. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Vol. 2016, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2016.
  11. Hreinsson J, Rosenlund B, Fridström M, EK I, Levkov L, Sjöblom P, et al. Embryo transfer is equally effective at cleavage stage and blastocyst stage: A randomized prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117(2): 194-200.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.