Comparison of Embryo Transfer Techniques in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Cycles

  • Sarah Ligon Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Madigan Army Medical Center, Washington, USA
  • Jose Roble Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, USA
  • Kimberly Chaffin Department of Clinical Investigation, Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, USA
  • Bruce Pier Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Irwin Army Community Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, USA
  • Gary Levy Department of Clinical Investigation, Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, USA
Keywords: Embryo transfer, technique, pregnancy, female, adult, pregnancy rate, retrospective studies

Abstract

Different transfer techniques have been developed to optimize the embryo transfer process and maximize the probability of pregnancy after transfer. The purpose of this study is to compare the afterload (AL) and the immediate post-mock (PM) embryo transfer (ET) techniques. The aim of this study is to determine if the AL ET technique results in a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) compared to the immediate PM ET technique. The study population included 251 women between the ages of 18 and 49 at the time of transfer who underwent an autologous, fresh, or cryopreserved ET between 01 July 2013 and 01 September 2016 at our academic center. Embryo transfer was performed with either the AL or the immediate PM transfer technique Main outcome measure is OPR (presence of fetal cardiac activity on a first-trimester ultrasound). There was no significant difference in OPR between patients that underwent AL transfers and PM transfers (AL 51%, PM 57%; P=.378). OPR for frozen embryo transfers was superior for AL transfers compared to PM transfers (AL 68%, PM 31%; P=.005). OPR was superior with the PM technique for fresh embryo transfers (AL 43%, PM 63%; P=.002). OPR decreased with increasing age in the AL cohort, but not in the PM cohort (P=.004). There appears to be no overall difference in OPR between AL and PM transfer techniques. However, with vitrified embryos, the AL technique demonstrated a higher OPR, and with fresh embryos, the PM technique resulted in a superior OPR.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Gennarelli G, Holte J, Livi C, Aura Masip M, Uher P, Fabozzi G, Ubaldi FM. Measuring success in IVF is a complex multidisciplinary task: time for a consensus? Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 Nov;43(5):775-778. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.012. Epub 2021 Aug 20. PMID: 34493463.

Garzo VG. Embryo transfer technique. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Mar;49(1):117-22. doi: 10.1097/01.grf.0000197505.52700.f6. PMID: 16456347.

Egbase PE, al-Sharhan M, al-Othman S, al-Mutawa M, Udo EE, Grudzinskas JG. Incidence of microbial growth from the tip of the embryo transfer catheter after embryo transfer in relation to clinical pregnancy rate following in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1996 Aug;11(8):1687-9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019470. PMID: 8921117.

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Performing the embryo transfer: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2017 Apr;107(4):882-896. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.025. PMID: 28366416.

Mains L, Van Voorhis BJ. Optimizing the technique of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010 Aug;94(3):785-90. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.030. PMID: 11980731.

Alvero R, Hearns-Stokes RM, Catherino WH, Leondires MP, Segars JH. The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2003 Sep;18(9):1848-52. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg359. PMID: 12923137.

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. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.022. PMID: 15749502; PMCID: PMC3444287.

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 Oct;54(4):678-81. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53829-1. PMID: 2209889.

Sharif K, Afnan M, Lenton W. Mock embryo transfer with a full bladder immediately before the real transfer for in-vitro fertilization treatment: the Birmingham experience of 113 cases. Hum Reprod. 1995 Jul;10(7):1715-8. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136161. PMID: 8582967.

Choe JK, Nazari A, Check JH, Summers-Chase D, Swenson K. Marked improvement in clinical pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer seen when transfer technique and catheter were changed. Clin Exper Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 28:223–4. PMID: 11838743

Mansour RT, Aboulghar MAA. Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:1149–53. PMID: 11980731.

Lesny P, Killick SR, Tetlow RL, Robinson J, Maguiness SD. Embryo transfer—can we learn anything new from the observation of junctional zone contractions? Hum Reprod. 1998; 13:1540–6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.6.1540. PMID: 9688388

Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI, Amin YM. Dummy embryo transfer using methylene blue dye. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9:1257–9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138690. PMID: 7962429

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; 12:1188–90. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.6.1188. PMID: 9221999.

van de Pas MMC, Weima S, Looman CWN, Broekmans FJM. The use of fixed distance embryo transfer after IVF/ICSI equalizes the success rates among physicians. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18:774–80. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg175. PMID: 12660270.

Published
2022-03-10
How to Cite
Ligon, S., Roble, J., Chaffin, K., Pier, B., & Levy, G. (2022). Comparison of Embryo Transfer Techniques in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Cycles. Journal of Infertility and Reproductive Biology, 10(1), 15-18. https://doi.org/10.47277/JIRB/10(1)/18
Section
Fast publication process (non-free of charge)