Volume 110, Issue 7, Pages 1290–1297
Authors:
Charlène Herbemont, Pharm.D., Sarah Chekroune, Pharm.D., Sarah Bonan, M.D., Isabelle Cedrin-Durnerin, M.D., Alexandre Vivot, M.D., Charlotte Sonigo, M.D., Jeremy Boujenah, M.D., Michael Grynberg, M.D., Ph.D., Christophe Sifer, M.D.
Abstract:
Objective
To determine whether post-warming culture duration (1 hour vs. 18 hours) influences implantation rates (IRs) of good-quality blastocysts (GQB) in a good-prognosis population.
Design
Prospective interventional randomized study.
Setting
University hospital.
Patient(s)
One hundred sixty-two GQB transfers.
Intervention(s)
Patients’ vitrified blastocysts were randomly allocated to group A, warming on the day before transfer (n = 81), or B, warming on the day of transfer (n = 81).
Main Outcome Measure(s)
IR, live birth rate, reexpansion degree, and quality after warming and immediately before transfer.
Result(s)
Quality of the warmed and transferred blastocysts was similar (respectively, 39.1% and 32.7% top quality [≥B4AA/AB/BA] in group A vs. 41.7 and 42.2% in group B). In group A, 14 of 102 blastocysts (12.2%) appeared to be unsuitable for transfer, versus only 1 of 103 (0.9%) in group B, thus leading to an additional warming. As expected, reexpansion degree just before transfer was higher in group A (0.90 vs. 0.70). Likewise, the proportion of hatched blastocysts before transfer was higher after a longer culture period (38.6% in group A vs. 12.7% in group B). IRs were similar (38.0% in group A vs. 36% in group B), as were live birth rates (35.8% in group A vs. 34.6% in group B).
Conclusion(s)
IRs were not different, whatever the duration of post-warming culture of GQB. Both warming strategies could be applied to good-prognosis patients to optimize the laboratory workflow without any detrimental effect.
Please sign in or register for FREE
Your Fertility and Sterility Dialog login information is not the same as your ASRM or EES credentials. Users must create a separate account to comment or interact on the Dialog.