Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30(03): 222-229
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1311524
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Day 2 Transfer in Clinical ART

Barry Behr
1   Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
,
Sohyun McElroy
2   Stem Cell Biology Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 May 2012 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, numerous techniques have enhanced assisted reproductive technology outcomes to help couples have >60,000 infants in the United States in 2008. Several different days for embryo transfers have been studied, but debate for the best timing of embryo transfer is still ongoing. With growing concern about multiple gestations and neonatal outcomes, early cleavage stage embryo transfer with novel embryo selection tools may be attractive to some patients and in vitro fertilization programs. In this review, we summarize clinical and basic studies relating to the timing of embryo transfer and highlight the possibilities of safe embryo transfer by combining advanced embryo screening tools with potentially high efficiency and low adverse effects on clinical outcome.

Keywords

day 2 embryo transfer - assisted reproductive technology - time-lapse imaging - embryo selection
 

  • References

  • 1 Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2 (8085) 366
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Quinn P, Stone BA, Marrs RP. Suboptimal laboratory conditions can affect pregnancy outcome after embryo transfer on day 1 or 2 after insemination in vitro. Fertil Steril 1990; 53 (1) 168-170
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Mahadevan MM, Miller MM, Moutos DM. Improved human zygote development in a modified Ham's F10 medium in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996; 13 (9) 722-725
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Vijayakumar R, Simoni J, Ndubisi B, DeLeon F, Heine W. Mouse embryo growth in different culture media: selection of a medium for quality control cross-testing of human in vitro fertilization conditions. Arch Androl 1987; 19 (2) 149-158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Quinn P, Kerin JF, Warnes GM. Improved pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization with the use of a medium based on the composition of human tubal fluid. Fertil Steril 1985; 44 (4) 493-498
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lane M, Gardner DK. Nonessential amino acids and glutamine decrease the time of the first three cleavage divisions and increase compaction of mouse zygotes in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997; 14 (7) 398-403
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF?. Hum Reprod Update 1997; 3 (4) 367-382
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Lane M, Gardner DK. Amino acids and vitamins prevent culture-induced metabolic perturbations and associated loss of viability of mouse blastocysts. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (4) 991-997
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Jun SH, Choi B, Shahine L , et al. Defining human embryo phenotypes by cohort-specific prognostic factors. PLoS ONE 2008; 3 (7) e2562
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Dragisic KG, Davis OK, Fasouliotis SJ, Rosenwaks Z. Use of a luteal estradiol patch and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (4) 1023-1026
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Liu HC, Cohen J, Alikani M, Noyes N, Rosenwaks Z. Assisted hatching facilitates earlier implantation. Fertil Steril 1993; 60 (5) 871-875
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 De Vos A, Staessen C, De Rycke M , et al. Impact of cleavage-stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (12) 2988-2996
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Chow JF, Yeung WS, Lau EY , et al. Singleton birth after preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington disease using whole genome amplification. Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (2) 828 , e7–e10
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Fehilly CB, Cohen J, Simons RF, Fishel SB, Edwards RG. Cryopreservation of cleaving embryos and expanded blastocysts in the human: a comparative study. Fertil Steril 1985; 44 (5) 638-644
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Lathi RB, Behr B. Pregnancy after trophectoderm biopsy of frozen-thawed blastocyst. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (5) 1938-1940
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Macháty Z, Day BN, Prather RS. Development of early porcine embryos in vitro and in vivo. Biol Reprod 1998; 59 (2) 451-455
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Farin PW, Slenning BD, Britt JH. Estimates of pregnancy outcomes based on selection of bovine embryos produced in vivo or in vitro. Theriogenology 1999; 52 (4) 659-670
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Richter KS. The importance of growth factors for preimplantation embryo development and in-vitro culture. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 20 (3) 292-304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bazer FW, Spencer TE, Johnson GA, Burghardt RC. Uterine receptivity to implantation of blastocysts in mammals. Front Biosci (Schol Ed) 2011; 3: 745-767 (Schol Ed)
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 20 Kolibianakis EM, Devroey P. The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5 (3, Suppl 1) 26-35
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 21 Nikas G, Develioglu OH, Toner JP, Jones Jr HW. Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (3) 787-792
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 22 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (2) 516-518
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 23 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (2) 344-348
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 24 Schultz RM. The molecular foundations of the maternal to zygotic transition in the preimplantation embryo. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8 (4) 323-331
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 25 Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988; 332 (6163) 459-461
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 26 Dobson AT, Raja R, Abeyta MJ , et al. The unique transcriptome through day 3 of human preimplantation development. Hum Mol Genet 2004; 13 (14) 1461-1470
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 27 Latham KE, Garrels JI, Chang C, Solter D. Analysis of embryonic mouse development: construction of a high-resolution, two-dimensional gel protein database. Appl Theor Electrophor 1992; 2 (6) 163-170
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 28 Vassena R, Boué S, González-Roca E , et al. Waves of early transcriptional activation and pluripotency program initiation during human preimplantation development. Development 2011; 138 (17) 3699-3709
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 29 Li E. Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Nat Rev Genet 2002; 3 (9) 662-673
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 30 Berger F, Chaudhury A. Parental memories shape seeds. Trends Plant Sci 2009; 14 (10) 550-556
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 31 Corry GN, Tanasijevic B, Barry ER, Krueger W, Rasmussen TP. Epigenetic regulatory mechanisms during preimplantation development. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 2009; 87 (4) 297-313
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 32 Santos F, Peters AH, Otte AP, Reik W, Dean W. Dynamic chromatin modifications characterise the first cell cycle in mouse embryos. Dev Biol 2005; 280 (1) 225-236
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 33 Liu H, Kim JM, Aoki F. Regulation of histone H3 lysine 9 methylation in oocytes and early pre-implantation embryos. Development 2004; 131 (10) 2269-2280
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 34 Lepikhov K, Walter J. Differential dynamics of histone H3 methylation at positions K4 and K9 in the mouse zygote. BMC Dev Biol 2004; 4: 12
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 35 Erhardt S, Su IH, Schneider R , et al. Consequences of the depletion of zygotic and embryonic enhancer of zeste 2 during preimplantation mouse development. Development 2003; 130 (18) 4235-4248
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 36 Howlett SK, Reik W. Methylation levels of maternal and paternal genomes during preimplantation development. Development 1991; 113 (1) 119-127
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 37 Reik W, Dean W, Walter J. Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science 2001; 293 (5532) 1089-1093
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 38 Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat Genet 2003; 33 (Suppl) 245-254
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 39 Clayton-Smith J, Laan L. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet 2003; 40 (2) 87-95
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 40 Sutcliffe AG, Peters CJ, Bowdin S , et al. Assisted reproductive therapies and imprinting disorders—a preliminary British survey. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (4) 1009-1011
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 41 Doornbos ME, Maas SM, McDonnell J, Vermeiden JP, Hennekam RC. Infertility, assisted reproduction technologies and imprinting disturbances: a Dutch study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (9) 2476-2480
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 42 Weksberg R, Shuman C, Smith AC. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2005; 137C (1) 12-23
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 43 Katari S, Turan N, Bibikova M , et al. DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceived in vitro or in vivo. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18 (20) 3769-3778
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 44 Gomes MV, Huber J, Ferriani RA, Amaral Neto AM, Ramos ES. Abnormal methylation at the KvDMR1 imprinting control region in clinically normal children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Mol Hum Reprod 2009; 15 (8) 471-477
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 45 Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 74 (4) 599-609
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 46 Horsthemke B, Ludwig M. Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11 (5) 473-482
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 47 Manipalviratn S, DeCherney A, Segars J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (2) 305-315
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 48 Lonergan P, Pedersen HG, Rizos D , et al. Effect of the post-fertilization culture environment on the incidence of chromosome aberrations in bovine blastocysts. Biol Reprod 2004; 71 (4) 1096-1100
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 49 Wrenzycki C, Niemann H. Epigenetic reprogramming in early embryonic development: effects of in-vitro production and somatic nuclear transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7 (6) 649-656
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 50 McElroy SL, Kim JH, Kim S , et al. Effects of culture conditions and nuclear transfer protocols on blastocyst formation and mRNA expression in pre-implantation porcine embryos. Theriogenology 2008; 69 (4) 416-425
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 51 Doherty AS, Mann MR, Tremblay KD, Bartolomei MS, Schultz RM. Differential effects of culture on imprinted H19 expression in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Biol Reprod 2000; 62 (6) 1526-1535
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 52 Fernández-Gonzalez R, Moreira P, Bilbao A , et al. Long-term effect of in vitro culture of mouse embryos with serum on mRNA expression of imprinting genes, development, and behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101 (16) 5880-5885
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 53 Li T, Vu TH, Ulaner GA , et al. IVF results in de novo DNA methylation and histone methylation at an Igf2-H19 imprinting epigenetic switch. Mol Hum Reprod 2005; 11 (9) 631-640
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 54 Scott L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6 (2) 201-214
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 55 Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (4) 1003-1013
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 56 Montag M, van der Ven H. ; German Pronuclear Morphology Study Group. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (11) 2384-2389
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 57 Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (5) 1318-1323
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 58 Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J, Rongières C, Nisand I, Gerlinger P. Zygote evaluation: an efficient tool for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (12) 2591-2597
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 59 Senn A, Vozzi C, Chanson A, De Grandi P, Germond M. Prospective randomized study of two cryopreservation policies avoiding embryo selection: the pronucleate stage leads to a higher cumulative delivery rate than the early cleavage stage. Fertil Steril 2000; 74 (5) 946-952
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 60 Ahuja KK, Smith W, Tucker M, Craft I. Successful pregnancies from the transfer of pronucleate embryos in an outpatient in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1985; 44 (2) 181-184
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 61 Dale B, Fiorentino A, de Simone ML , et al. Zygote versus embryo transfer: a prospective randomized multicenter trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19 (10) 456-461
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 62 Jaroudi K, Al-Hassan S, Sieck U, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Kabra M, Coskun S. Zygote transfer on day 1 versus cleavage stage embryo transfer on day 3: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (3) 645-648
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 63 Margreiter M, Weghofer A, Kogosowski A, Mahmoud KZ, Feichtinger W. A prospective randomized multicenter study to evaluate the best day for embryo transfer: does the outcome justify prolonged embryo culture?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20 (2) 91-94
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 64 Yoon HG, Yoon SH, Son WY, Kim JG, Im KS, Lim JH. Alternative embryo transfer on day 3 or day 5 for reducing the risk of multiple gestations. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001; 18 (5) 262-267
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 65 de los Santos MJ, Mercader A, Galán A, Albert C, Romero JL, Pellicer A. Implantation rates after two, three, or five days of embryo culture. Placenta 2003; 24 (Suppl B) S13-S19
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 66 Laverge H, De Sutter P, Van der Elst J, Dhont M. A prospective, randomized study comparing day 2 and day 3 embryo transfer in human IVF. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (3) 476-480
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 67 Shen S, Rosen MP, Dobson AT, Fujimoto VY, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. Day 2 transfer improves pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization cycles with few available embryos. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (1) 44-50
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 68 Bahceci M, Ulug U, Turan E, Akman MA. Comparisons of follicular levels of sex steroids, gonadotropins and insulin like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) in poor responder and normoresponder patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 130 (1) 93-98
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 69 Shahine LK, Milki AA, Westphal LM, Baker VL, Behr B, Lathi RB. Day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer in poor responders: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (1) 330-332
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 70 Dawson KJ, Conaghan J, Ostera GR, Winston RM, Hardy K. Delaying transfer to the third day post-insemination, to select non-arrested embryos, increases development to the fetal heart stage. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (1) 177-182
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 71 Carrillo AJ, Lane B, Pridman DD , et al. Improved clinical outcomes for in vitro fertilization with delay of embryo transfer from 48 to 72 hours after oocyte retrieval: use of glucose- and phosphate-free media. Fertil Steril 1998; 69 (2) 329-334
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 72 Oatway C, Gunby J, Daya S. Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (2) CD004378
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 73 Aboulghar MM, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin YM, Abou-Setta AM. Pregnancy rate is not improved by delaying embryo transfer from days 2 to 3. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 107 (2) 176-179
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 74 Ertzeid G, Dale PO, Tanbo T, Storeng R, Kjekshus E, Abyholm T. Clinical outcome of day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer using serum-free culture media: a prospective randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet 1999; 16 (10) 529-534
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 75 van Os HC, Alberda AT, Janssen-Caspers HA, Leerentveld RA, Scholtes MC, Zeilmaker GH. The influence of the interval between in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer and some other variables on treatment outcome. Fertil Steril 1989; 51 (2) 360-362
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 76 Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Blastocyst culture and transfer increases the efficiency of oocyte donation. Fertil Steril 2000; 74 (3) 482-486
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 77 Racowsky C, Jackson KV, Cekleniak NA, Fox JH, Hornstein MD, Ginsburg ES. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (3) 558-564
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 78 Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Van de Meerssche M, Valkenburg M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (10) 2581-2587
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 79 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D , et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (9) 2345-2349
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 80 Dokras A, Sargent IL, Ross C, Gardner RL, Barlow DH. The human blastocyst: morphology and human chorionic gonadotrophin secretion in vitro. Hum Reprod 1991; 6 (8) 1143-1151
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 81 Rubio C, Simón C, Mercader A, Garcia-Velasco J, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Clinical experience employing co-culture of human embryos with autologous human endometrial epithelial cells. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (Suppl. 06) 31-38
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 82 Behr B. Blastocyst culture and transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (1) 5-6
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 83 Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Fisch JD, Dasig D, Behr B. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (1) 126-129
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 84 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) 3434-3440
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 85 Karaki RZ, Samarraie SS, Younis NA, Lahloub TM, Ibrahim MH. Blastocyst culture and transfer: a step toward improved in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2002; 77 (1) 114-118
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 86 Blake D, Proctor M, Johnson N, Olive D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; (2) CD002118
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 87 Blake DA, Proctor M, Johnson NP. The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (9) 2174
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 88 Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture of viable human blastocysts in defined sequential serum-free media. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (Suppl. 03) 148-159 ; discussion 160
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 89 Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Blastocyst versus day 2 or 3 transfer. Semin Reprod Med 2001; 19 (3) 259-268
      Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 90 Marek D, Langley M, Gardner DK, Confer N, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1999; 72 (6) 1035-1040
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 91 Balaban B, Urman B, Alatas C, Mercan R, Aksoy S, Isiklar A. Blastocyst-stage transfer of poor-quality cleavage-stage embryos results in higher implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2001; 75 (3) 514-518
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 92 Frattarelli JL, Leondires MP, McKeeby JL, Miller BT, Segars JH. Blastocyst transfer decreases multiple pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2003; 79 (1) 228-230
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 93 Pantos K, Makrakis E, Stavrou D, Karantzis P, Vaxevanoglou T, Tzigounis V. Comparison of embryo transfer on day 2, day 3, and day 6: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2004; 81 (2) 454-455
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 94 Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome?. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (5) 1680-1683
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 95 Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Bidault R , et al. Single day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (5) 1051-1058
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 96 Schwärzler P, Zech H, Auer M , et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (9) 2097-2102
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 97 Fleming TP, Kwong WY, Porter R , et al. The embryo and its future. Biol Reprod 2004; 71 (4) 1046-1054
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 98 Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (10) 731-737
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 99 Maher ER, Brueton LA, Bowdin SC , et al. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproduction technology (ART). J Med Genet 2003; 40 (1) 62-64
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 100 Ørstavik KH. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and congenital syndromes because of imprinting defects. [in Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003; 123 (2) 177
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 101 Salumets A, Hydén-Granskog C, Suikkari AM, Tiitinen A, Tuuri T. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (10) 2177-2181
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 102 Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod 1997; 12 (3) 532-541
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 103 Gianaroli L, Cristina Magli M, Ferraretti AP , et al. Reducing the time of sperm-oocyte interaction in human in-vitro fertilization improves the implantation rate. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (1) 166-171
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 104 Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P , et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (9) 2427-2431
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 105 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Laureys I, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. Calculating the implantation potential of day 3 embryos in women younger than 38 years of age: a new model. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (2) 326-332
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 106 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M , et al. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (5) 1062-1069
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 107 Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjögren A, Lundin K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (2) 313-318
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 108 Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K , et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (2) 548-557
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 109 Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL , et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28 (10) 1115-1121
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 110 Geber S, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Proliferation of blastomeres from biopsied cleavage stage human embryos in vitro: an alternative to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (6) 1492-1496
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 111 Senat MV, Ancel PY, Bouvier-Colle MH, Bréart G. How does multiple pregnancy affect maternal mortality and morbidity?. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998; 41 (1) 78-83
      PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 112 Land JA, Evers JL. Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: Report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (2) 455-457
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
    • 113 Bosch E, Ezcurra D. Individualised controlled ovarian stimulation (iCOS): maximising success rates for assisted reproductive technology patients. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2011; 9: 82
      CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar