4.7 Article

Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome?

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 94, Issue 5, Pages 1680-1683

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.027

Keywords

Blastocyst; preterm birth; stillbirth; congenital malformations

Funding

  1. Evy and Gunnar Sandberg Foundation, Lund, Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare neonatal outcome of blastocyst and cleavage stage embryo transfers after IVF. Design: Register study. Setting: Births recorded in the Swedish Medical Birth Register after IVF performed, 2002-2006. Patient(s): Treatments reported from all Swedish IVF clinics. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Some neonatal characteristics were compared in 1,311 infants born after blastocyst-stage transfer and 12,562 infants born after cleavage-stage transfer. Comparisons were also made with all births, 2002-2007 (n = 598,687). Result(s): After adjusting for year of birth, maternal age, parity, smoking habits, and body mass index, the risk of preterm birth among singletons was significantly greater after blastocyst-stage transfer than after cleavage-stage transfer. The risk of congenital malformations was also significantly higher. When the analysis was restricted to clinics where blastocyst transfers were made, the risk estimates increased for preterm birth, low birth weight, low APGAR score, and respiratory diagnoses, but did not change for congenital malformations. Conclusion(s): The results indicate a small increase in risk associated with blastocyst transfer, perhaps owing to the longer period of in vitro culture. There is a possibility that this effect is due, at least in part, to a selection of women for blastocyst transfers. Further studies are needed either to verify or to refute the found associations. (Fertil Steril (R) 2010;94:1680-3. (C) 2010 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