Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2014; 32(04): 291-296
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1375181
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Practice of Embryo Transfer: Recommendations During and After

Bulent Tıras
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acibadem University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Pinar Ozcan Cenksoy
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yeditepe University Medical School, Istanbul, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 June 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Many patient and embryo factors influence the outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. The predictors for a successful ART cycle include female age, ovarian reserve, embryo quality, endometrial receptivity, and embryo transfer (ET) technique. ET, the final step of ART, has recently been noted as a crucial step affecting ART success. Variables affecting pregnancy rates following ET include ultrasound guidance, ease of ET transfer, catheter type, transfer and catheter-loading technique, blood or mucus effects, retained embryos, trial transfer, the physician's experience, and catheter tip placement. Despite the lack of consensus regarding the optimal ET technique, it is generally recommended that during ET, the disruption of the endometrium and the induction of uterine contractions should be avoided. The exposure of embryos to the ambient conditions should be minimized, and the embryo(s) should be placed at an optimal position within the fundal region of the uterine cavity.

Keywords

embryo transfer technique - assisted reproductive technology - successful embryo transfer
 

  • References

  • 1 National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates; 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2006/PDF/2006ART.pdf . Accessed on May 21, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Strandell A, Bergh C, Lundin K. Selection of patients suitable for one-embryo transfer may reduce the rate of multiple births by half without impairment of overall birth rates. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (12) 2520-2525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hoozemans DA, Schats R, Lambalk CB, Homburg R, Hompes PG. Human embryo implantation: current knowledge and clinical implications in assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9 (6) 692-715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK. Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril 2001; 76 (5) 863-870
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Neithardt AB, Segars JH, Hennessy S, James AN, McKeeby JL. Embryo afterloading: a refinement in embryo transfer technique that may increase clinical pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2005; 83 (3) 710-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Scott L. Embryological strategies for overcoming recurrent assisted reproductive technology treatment failure. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2002; 5 (4) 206-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schats R, Sutter PD, Bassil S, Kremer JA, Tournaye H, Donnez J. Ovarian stimulation during assisted reproduction treatment: a comparison of recombinant and highly purified urinary human FSH. On behalf of The Feronia and Apis study group. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (8) 1691-1697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kovacs GT. What factors are important for successful embryo transfer after in-vitro fertilization?. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (3) 590-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Salha OH, Lamb VK, Balen AH. A postal survey of embryo transfer practice in the UK. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (4) 686-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mains L, Van Voorhis BJ. Optimizing the technique of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (3) 785-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tomás C, Tikkinen K, Tuomivaara L, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. The degree of difficulty of embryo transfer is an independent factor for predicting pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (10) 2632-2635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rhodes TL, McCoy TP, Higdon III HL, Boone WR. Factors affecting assisted reproductive technology (ART) pregnancy rates: a multivariate analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005; 22 (9-10) 335-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sallam HN, Agameya AF, Rahman AF, Ezzeldin F, Sallam AN. Impact of technical difficulties, choice of catheter, and the presence of blood on the success of embryo transfer—experience from a single provider. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20 (4) 135-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 De Placido G, Wilding M, Stina I , et al. The effect of ease of transfer and type of catheter used on pregnancy and implantation rates in an IVF program. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19 (1) 14-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tiras B, Korucuoglu U, Polat M, Saltik A, Zeyneloglu HB, Yarali H. Effect of blood and mucus on the success rates of embryo transfers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012; 165 (2) 239-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Singh N, Gupta P, Mittal S, Malhotra N. Correlation of technical difficulty during embryo transfer with rate of clinical pregnancy. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012; 5 (3) 258-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Phillips JA, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Raine-Fenning NJ. Difficult embryo transfers or blood on catheter and assisted reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 168 (2) 121-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kato O, Takatsuka R, Asch RH. Transvaginal-transmyometrial embryo transfer: the Towako method; experiences of 104 cases. Fertil Steril 1993; 59 (1) 51-53
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour G. Dummy embryo transfer: a technique that minimizes the problems of embryo transfer and improves the pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1990; 54 (4) 678-681
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Knutzen V, Stratton CJ, Sher G, McNamee PI, Huang TT, Soto-Albors C. Mock embryo transfer in early luteal phase, the cycle before in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a descriptive study. Fertil Steril 1992; 57 (1) 156-162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Katariya KO, Bates GW, Robinson RD, Arthur NJ, Propst AM. Does the timing of mock embryo transfer affect in vitro fertilization implantation and pregnancy rates?. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (5) 1462-1464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Prapas N, Prapas Y, Panagiotidis Y, Prapa S, Vanderzwalmen P, Makedos G. Cervical dilatation has a positive impact on the outcome of IVF in randomly assigned cases having two previous difficult embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (8) 1791-1795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Aust TR, Herod JJ, Gazvani R. Placement of a Malecot catheter to enable embryo transfer after radical trachelectomy. Fertil Steril 2005; 83 (6) 1842
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pabuccu R, Ceyhan ST, Onalan G, Goktolga U, Ercan CM, Selam B. Successful treatment of cervical stenosis with hysteroscopic canalization before embryo transfer in patients undergoing IVF: a case series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005; 12 (5) 436-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Glatstein IZ, Pang SC, McShane PM. Successful pregnancies with the use of laminaria tents before embryo transfer for refractory cervical stenosis. Fertil Steril 1997; 67 (6) 1172-1174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Henne MB, Milki AA. Uterine position at real embryo transfer compared with mock embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (3) 570-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pope CS, Cook EK, Arny M, Novak A, Grow DR. Influence of embryo transfer depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril 2004; 81 (1) 51-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Coroleu B, Carreras O, Veiga A , et al. Embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance improves pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (3) 616-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wood EG, Batzer FR, Go KJ, Gutmann JN, Corson SL. Ultrasound-guided soft catheter embryo transfers will improve pregnancy rates in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (1) 107-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tang OS, Ng EH, So WW, Ho PC. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (11) 2310-2315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Brown JA, Buckingham K, Abou-Setta A, Buckett W. Ultrasound versus 'clinical touch' for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 24 (1) CD006107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lewin A, Schenker JG, Avrech O, Shapira S, Safran A, Friedler S. The role of uterine straightening by passive bladder distension before embryo transfer in IVF cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997; 14 (1) 32-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lorusso F, Depalo R, Bettocchi S, Vacca M, Vimercati A, Selvaggi L. Outcome of in vitro fertilization after transabdominal ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer with a full or empty bladder. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (4) 1046-1048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Abou-Setta AM, Al-Inany HG, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Aboulghar MA. Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (11) 3114-3121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Buckett WM. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2006; 85 (3) 728-734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Yao Z, Vansteelandt S, Van der Elst J, Coetsier T, Dhont M, De Sutter P. The efficacy of the embryo transfer catheter in IVF and ICSI is operator-dependent: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (4) 880-887
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Aboulfotouh I, Abou-Setta AM, Khattab S, Mohsen IA, Askalani A, el-Din RE. Firm versus soft embryo transfer catheters under ultrasound guidance: does catheter choice really influence the pregnancy rates?. Fertil Steril 2008; 89 (5) 1261-1262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Marconi G, Vilela M, Belló J, Diradourián M, Quintana R, Sueldo C. Endometrial lesions caused by catheters used for embryo transfers: a preliminary report. Fertil Steril 2003; 80 (2) 363-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 McIlveen M, Lok FD, Pritchard J, Lashen H. Modern embryo transfer catheters and pregnancy outcome: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (4) 996-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Leeton J, Trounson A, Jessup D, Wood C. The technique for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1982; 38 (2) 156-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Visser DS, Fourie FL, Kruger HF. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: effect on pregnancy outcome in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993; 10 (1) 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Moragianni VA, Cohen JD, Smith SE , et al. Effect of macroscopic or microscopic blood and mucus on the success rates of embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 2010; 93 (2) 570-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Eskandar MA, Abou-Setta AM, El-Amin M, Almushait MA, Sobande AA. Removal of cervical mucus prior to embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 14 (3) 308-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Michael E, Ahmady A. The use of a cytobrush in cervical canal preparation for embryo transfer procedures. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: S357
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Moore DE, Soules MR, Klein NA, Fujimoto VY, Agnew KJ, Eschenbach DA. Bacteria in the transfer catheter tip influence the live-birth rate after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2000; 74 (6) 1118-1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Brook N, Khalaf Y, Coomarasamy A, Edgeworth J, Braude P. A randomized controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics (co-amoxiclav) prior to embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (11) 2911-2915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kroon B, Hart RJ, Wong BM, Ford E, Yazdani A. Antibiotics prior to embryo transfer in ART. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3: CD008995
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ghazzawi IM, Al-Hasani S, Karaki R, Souso S. Transfer technique and catheter choice influence the incidence of transcervical embryo expulsion and the outcome of IVF. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (3) 677-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Eytan O, Zaretsky U, Jaffa AJ, Elad D. In vitro simulations of embryo transfer in a laboratory model of the uterus. J Biomech 2007; 40 (5) 1073-1080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Poindexter III AN, Thompson DJ, Gibbons WE, Findley WE, Dodson MG, Young RL. Residual embryos in failed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1986; 46 (2) 262-267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Pölz W, Tews G. The ineffective loading process of the embryo transfer catheter alters implantation and pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 2001; 76 (3) 630-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Grygoruk C, Sieczynski P, Pietrewicz P, Mrugacz M, Gagan J, Mrugacz G. Pressure changes during embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (2) 538-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Grygoruk C, Ratomski K, Kolodziejczyk M , et al. Fluid dynamics during embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (2) 324-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Groeneveld E, de Leeuw B, Vergouw CG , et al. Standardization of catheter load speed during embryo transfer: comparison of manual and pump-regulated embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24 (2) 163-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Martínez F, Coroleu B, Parriego M , et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: immediate withdrawal of the catheter versus a 30 second wait. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (5) 871-874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Sroga JM, Montville CP, Aubuchon M, Williams DB, Thomas MA. Effect of delayed versus immediate embryo transfer catheter removal on pregnancy outcomes during fresh cycles. Fertil Steril 2010; 93 (6) 2088-2090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Matorras R, Mendoza R, Expósito A, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ. Influence of the time interval between embryo catheter loading and discharging on the success of IVF. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (9) 2027-2030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Nabi A, Awonuga A, Birch H, Barlow S, Stewart B. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: does this affect in-vitro fertilization treatment outcome?. Hum Reprod 1997; 12 (6) 1188-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Goudas VT, Hammitt DG, Damario MA, Session DR, Singh AP, Dumesic DA. Blood on the embryo transfer catheter is associated with decreased rates of embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy with the use of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1998; 70 (5) 878-882
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Lambers MJ, Dogan E, Lens JW, Schats R, Hompes PG. The position of transferred air bubbles after embryo transfer is related to pregnancy rate. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (1) 68-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Friedman BE, Lathi RB, Henne MB, Fisher SL, Milki AA. The effect of air bubble position after blastocyst transfer on pregnancy rates in IVF cycles. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (3) 944-947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Cenksoy PO, Fıcıcıoglu C, Yesiladali M, Akcin OA, Kaspar C. The importance of the length of uterine cavity, the position of the tip of the inner catheter and the distance between the fundal endometrial surface and the air bubbles as determinants of the pregnancy rate in IVF cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 172: 46-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 van Gestel I, IJland MM, Hoogland HJ, Evers JL. Endometrial wave-like activity in the non-pregnant uterus. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9 (2) 131-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Jinno M, Ozaki T, Iwashita M, Nakamura Y, Kudo A, Hirano H. Measurement of endometrial tissue blood flow: a novel way to assess uterine receptivity for implantation. Fertil Steril 2001; 76 (6) 1168-1174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Tiras B, Polat M, Korucuoglu U, Zeyneloglu HB, Yarali H. Impact of embryo replacement depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) 1341-1345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Tiras B, Korucuoglu U, Polat M, Saltik A, Zeyneloglu HB, Yarali H. Effect of air bubble localization after transfer on embryo transfer outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012; 164 (1) 52-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Amarin ZO, Obeidat BR. Bed rest versus free mobilisation following embryo transfer: a prospective randomised study. BJOG 2004; 111 (11) 1273-1276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Tremellen KP, Valbuena D, Landeras J , et al. The effect of intercourse on pregnancy rates during assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (12) 2653-2658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Küçük M. Bed rest after embryo transfer: is it harmful?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 167 (2) 123-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar