Skip to main content
Log in

Blastocyst expansion score and trophectoderm morphology strongly predict successful clinical pregnancy and live birth following elective single embryo blastocyst transfer (eSET): a national study

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine which characteristics of blastocyst embryo morphology may predict clinical pregnancy and live birth rates.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data from 3,151 cycles of fresh, non-donor eSET cycles from 2008 to 2009 was performed. Data were obtained from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART) underwent. All eSET were performed at the blastocyst stage. Main outcome measures were clinical pregnancy and live birth rates.

Results

Trophectoderm morphology, embryo stage and patient age are highly significant independent predictors of both clinical pregnancy and live birth. Neither inner cell mass morphology nor embryo grade predicted clinical pregnancy or live birth.

Conclusions

Better trophectoderm morphology, younger patient age and further blastocyst progression all result in higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Therefore, trophectoderm morphology and blastocyst stage should preferentially be used as the most important factors in choosing the best embryo for transfer.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahlström A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3289–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Balaban B, Urman B, Isiklar A, Alatas C, Aksory S, Mercan R, et al. The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2357–61.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4, CD002118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(6):1155–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gardner D, Schoolcraft W. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Toward reproductive certainty (fertility and genetics beyond 1999). Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing; 1999. p. 378–88.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Stevens J, Hesla J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(12):3434–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill M, Richter K, Heitmann R, Graham J, Tucker M, Decherney A, et al. Trophectoderm grade predicts outcomes of single–blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Honnma H, Baba T, Sasaki M, Hashiba Y, Ohno H, Fukunaga T, et al. Trophectoderm morphology significantly affects the rates of ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage in frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer cycle in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(2):361–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kovacic B, Vlaisavljevic V, Reljic M, Cizek-Sajko M. Developmental capacity of different morphological types of day 5 human morulae and blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(6):687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM, Price TM, Jamison MG, Walmer DK. Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(4):900–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pinborg A, Loft A, Nyobe Anderson A. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 8602 children born after in vitro fertilization or intracystoplasmic sperm injection: the role of twin pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(11):1071–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1518–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Multiple gestatation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4), April 2012.

  15. Racowsky C, Combelles CM, Nureddin A, Pan Y, Finn A, Miles L, et al. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6:323–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Racowsky C, Vernon M, Mayer J, Ball D, Behr B, Pomeroy K, et al. Standardization of grading embryo morphology. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:437–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rehman KS, Bukulmez O, Langley M, Carr BR, Nackley AC, Doody KM, et al. Late stages of embryo progression are a much better predictor of clinical pregnancy than early cleavage in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cycles with blastocyst-stage transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(5):1041–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST, Shapiro BS. Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(6):1157–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(11):2394–403.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Vernon M, Stern JE, Ball GD, Wininger D, Mayer J, Racowsky C. Utility of the national embryo morphology data collection by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART): correlation between day-3 morphology grade and live-birth outcome. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(8):2761–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zaninovic N, Berrios R, Clarke RN, Bodine R, Ye Z, Veeck LL. Blastocyst expansion, inner cell mass (ICM) formation, and trophectoderm (TM) quality: is one more important for implantation? Fertil Steril. 2001;76:S8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

S.M.T, N.O., and K.B. have no conflicts of interests or financial disclosures. P.M. has grant funding from EMD Serono, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study. S.J. has grant funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study.

Financial disclosures

This study has no financial support.

Preliminary data from this study was presented at the Society for Gynecologic Investigators, March 2012. San Diego, Ca.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Marshall Thompson.

Additional information

Capsule Live birth and clinical pregnancy rates after elective single embryo transfer are predicted by trophectoderm morphology, patient age and blastocyst expansion score.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, S.M., Onwubalili, N., Brown, K. et al. Blastocyst expansion score and trophectoderm morphology strongly predict successful clinical pregnancy and live birth following elective single embryo blastocyst transfer (eSET): a national study. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 1577–1581 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0100-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0100-4

Keywords

Navigation