4.7 Article

Comparison of G1.2/G2.2 and Sydney IVF cleavage/blastocyst sequential media for the culture of human embryos: a prospective, randomized, comparative study

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 76, Issue 5, Pages 1023-1031

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02854-0

Keywords

human embryo culture; sequential culture medium; IVF; blastocyst; implantation rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare two commercially available sequential media, G1.2/G2.2 and Sydney IVF cleavage/ blastocyst media, as supports for human embryo culture. Design: Prospective randomized study. Setting: University-based IVF clinic. Patient(s): Two hundred forty-nine patients undergoing IVF treatment for the first or second time, randomly allocated at the time of oocyte retrieval, to either culture in G1.2/G2.2 or Sydney IVF media. Intervention(s): Oocyte recovery, IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, embryo culture, transfer on day 3 or day 5/6. Main Outcome Measure(s): Developmental stage on day 3, blastocyst rate, pregnancy outcome as assessed by beta hCG positive test, implantation rates, and ongoing pregnancies. Result(s): Embryos cultured in G1.2/G2.2 media displayed a faster kinetics of cleavage, compaction, blastulation, and hatching, but a lower day 3 embryo quality than those grown in Sydney IVF media. For patients with at least five embryos, G1.2/G2.2 media yielded higher implantation rates (26.2%) in our day 3 embryo transfer program when compared to Sydney IVF medium (15.5%), whereas similar implantation rates were obtained for day 5/6 embryo transfer for both media (43.1% and 36.1%, respectively). Conclusion(s): In our day 3 embryo transfer program, G1.2/G2.2 media were superior to Sydney IVF media, whereas both media yielded similar outcomes in our blastocyst transfer program. (C) 2001 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available