REDUCTION OF OBSTETRIC AND PERINATAL RISKS IN IVF: THE STRATEGY OF SINGLE BLASTOCYST-STAGE EMBRYO TRANSFER
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/1728.2748.2026.104.11-18Keywords:
embryo transfer, blastocyst-stage embryo, cleavage-stage embryo, embryo implantation, eSET, assisted reproductive technology (ART), embryo selectionAbstract
Background. Determining the optimal day for embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a key factor influencing reproductive outcomes. Transferring a single embryo at the blastocyst stage (day 5) provides better synchronization with the endometrial receptivity window and allows for selection of embryos with higher developmental potential. This strategy is associated with improved implantation rates and a reduced risk of multiple gestations. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of embryo transfers performed on day 3 (cleavage stage) versus day 5 (blastocyst stage) in IVF cycles, focusing on implantation efficiency and pregnancy outcomes.
Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 576 women who underwent IVF treatment between 2022 and 2024 at a major reproductive center in Uzbekistan. Patients were grouped based on the timing of embryo transfer: Group 1: cleavage-stage embryo transfers (day 3) (n = 200); Group2: blastocyst-stage embryo transfers (day 5) (n = 376). Trends in transfer practices, number of embryos transferred, implantation rates, and pregnancy outcomes were analyzed.
Results. Between 2022 and 2024, the proportion of blastocyst-stage transfers increased significantly from 65 % to 96 %, while cleavage-stage transfers declined to 4 %. The average implantation rate for day 5 transfers (64.2 %) was significantly higher than for day 3 transfers (51.2 %). Simultaneously, the proportion of elective single embryo transfers (eSET) rose from 30 % to 62 %, contributing to a reduction in multiple pregnancy rates. This information is based on retrospective analysis of clinical records from our IVF center.
Сonclusions.The shift toward blastocyst-stage embryo transfer and eSET in Uzbekistan reflects a broader alignment with international IVF standards. These changes are associated with improved implantation outcomes and reduced perinatal risks, supporting a more personalized and evidence-based approach to reproductive care.
Downloads
References
Baart, E. B., Martini, E., van den Berg, I., Macklon, N. S., Galjaard, R. J., Fauser, B. C., & Martini, E. (2006). Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Human Reproduction, 21(1), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dei291
Braude, P., Bolton, V., & Moore, S. (1988). Human gene expression first occurs between the four and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature, 332, 459–461. https://doi.org/10.1038/332459a0
Croxatto, H. B., Fuentaealba, B., Diaz, S., Pastene, L., & Tatum, H. J. (1972). A simple non-surgical technique to obtain unimplanted eggs from human uteri. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 112(5), 662–668. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0002-9378(72)90792-2
Edwards, R. G., & Brody, S. A. (1995). History and ethics of assisted human conception. In Principles and practice of assisted human reproduction (pp. 17–47). WB Saunders.
Fanchin, R., Ayoubi, J. M., Righini, C., Olivennes, F., Schönauer, L. M., & Frydman, R. (2001). Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Human Reproduction, 16(6), 1115–1119. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/16.6.1115
Gardner, D. K., Lane, M., Calderon, I., & Leeton, J. (1996). Environment of the preimplantation human embryo in vivo: Metabolite analysis of oviduct and uterine fluids and metabolism of cumulus cell. Fertility and Sterility, 65(2), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58097-2
Gardner, D. K., Vella, P., Lane, M., Wagley, L., Schlenker, T., & Schoolcraft, W. B. (1998). Culture and transfer of human blastocyts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertility and Sterility, 69(1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04576-4
Glujovsky, D., Quinteiro Retamar, A. M., Alvarez Sedo, C. R., Ciapponi, A., Cornelisse, S., & Blake, D. (2022). Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2022(5), CD002118. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. CD002118.pub6
Marek, D., Langley, M., Gardner, D. K., Confer, N., Doody, K. M., & Doody, K. J. (1999). Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertility and Sterility, 72(6), 1035–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00414-0
Marston, J. H., Penn, R., & Sivelle, P. C. (1977). Successful autotransfer of tubal eggs in the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 49, 175–176. https://doi.org/10.1530/jrf.0.0490175
Schoolcraft, W. B., & Gardner, D. K. (2001). Blastocyst versus day 2 or 3 transfer. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 19, 259–268. https://doi.org/ 10.1055/s-2001-18045
Sjoblom, P., Menzes, J., Cummins, L., & Mathiyalagan, B. (2006). Prediction of embryo developmental potential and pregnancy based on early-stage morphological characteristics. Fertility and Sterility, 86, 848–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.03.040
Steer, C. V., Mills, C. L., Tan, S. L., Campbell, S., & Edwards, R. G. (1992). The cumulative embryo score: A predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Human Reproduction, 7(1), 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137542
Valbuena, D., Martin, J., de Pablo, J., Remohi, J., Pellicer, A., & Simon, C. (2001). Increasing levels of estradiol are deleterious to embryonic implantation because they affect the embryo. Fertility and Sterility, 76(5), 962–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02844-3
Van Blerkom, J. (1993). Development of human embryos to the hatched blastocyst stage in the presence or absence of a monolayer of Vero cells. Human Reproduction, 8, 1525–1539. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals. humrep.a138293
