4.7 Review

The influence of delayed blastocyst formation on the outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1906-1915

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq143

关键词

blastocysts; cryopreservation; frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer; pregnancy; controlled studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are conflicting results on whether the rate of blastocyst development before freezing influences the outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies to compare pregnancy outcomes following transfer of thawed blastocysts that were frozen either on Day 5 or Day 6 following fertilization in vitro. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for quality assessment. We identified 15 controlled studies comprising 2502 frozen-thawed transfers involving blastocysts that were either frozen on Day 5 or Day 6. Meta-analysis of these studies showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.26, P = 0.01] and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.30, P = 0.03) with Day 5 compared with Day 6 frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers. Sensitivity analysis of those studies where blastocysts frozen on Day 5 or Day 6 were at the same stage of development showed no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87-1.33, P = 0.51) and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.92-1.27, P = 0.36). Slower developing blastocysts cryopreserved on Day 6 but at the same stage of development as those developing to the blastocyst stage on Day 5 have similar clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates following frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据