Influence of the length of cultivation of no early cleavage embryos on the IVF success rate

Authors: M. Řeřuchová 1;  J. Březinová 2,3;  R. Filipčíková 3;  I. Oborná 4
Authors‘ workplace: Ústav biologie LF UP, Olomouc, přednosta doc. RNDr. V. Divoký, Ph. D. 1;  Arleta – Centrum reprodukčního zdraví, s. r. o., vedoucí MUDr. J. Doležal 2;  Ústav normální anatomie LF UP, Olomouc, přednosta doc. MUDr. S. Laichman, CSc. 3;  Porodnicko-gynekologická klinika FN a LF UP, Olomouc, přednosta prof. MUDr. R. Pilka, Ph. D. 4
Published in: Čes. Gynek.2013, 78, č. 1 s. 68-72


Objective of the study:
To evaluate the success of treatment cycle after transfer of no early cleavage embryos in relation to the length of in vitro cultivation.

Type of the study:
Retrospective study.

Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc.

The IVF cycles with transfer of no early cleavage (NEC) embryos, ie. embryos with a delayed cleavage were evaluated in relation to the length of in vitro cultivation. The total of 338 embryos were cultured for three days (group 3D) and 204 embryos were cultured for 5 days (group 5D). The input parameters of the patients in these two groups were: their age, the percentage of fertilized oocytes and the number of transferred embryos. As the output parameters the number of cancelled cycles, clinical pregnancy rate (PR/ET), implantation rate (IR), and the number of pregnancy losses (AB) were evaluated. Finally, the results of these pregnancies were also evaluated.

Both study groups had the same input parameters, except that fewer embryos were transferred in the group 5D than in 3D (1.8 ± 0.5 vs. 2.0 ± 0.5,p = 0.000).

No cycles were cancelled in the group 3D while 33 cycles were cancelled in 5D (p = 0.000). The number of clinical pregnancies and implantation rate in the group 5D was significantly higher than in 3D (PR/ET 50% vs. 37%, IR 36% vs. 25%, p = 0.001). The groups did not statistically significantly differ in the number of pregnancy losses, or in the number of pregnancies that resulted in childbirth.

In the 5D group with the longer in vitro cultivation statistically more pregnancies and implanted embryos were achieved, although the number of pregnancies that resulted in childbirth did not differ between groups.

embryo development – pregnancy – IVF – pregnancy outcomes


1. Beesley, R., Robinson, R., Propst, A., et al. Impact of day 3 or day 5 embryo transfer on pregnancy rates and multiple gestations. Fertil Steril, 2009, 91, 5, p. 1717–1720.

2. Butterworth, S. Blastocyst culture: myth or magic? Hum Fertil (Camb)., 2001, 4, 2, p. 109–116.

3. Březinová, J., Oborná, I., Svobodová, M., et al. Embrya s časným dělením (early cleavage) a jejich vliv na výsledky klasického IVF. Čes Gynek, 2003, 68, 6, s. 449–453.

4. Březinová, J., Svobodová, M., Kršková, M., et al. Vliv časného nástupu prvního buněčného dělení po vpichu spermie do cytoplasmy oocytu (ICSI) na výsledky IVF + ET. Čes Gynek, 2004, 69, 1, s. 37–42.

5. Březinová, J., Svobodová, M., Oborná, I., et al. Kvalita embryí po klasickém IVF v závislosti na rychlosti nástupu prvního buněčného dělení. Čes Gynek, 2006, 71, 2, s. 105–110.

6. Březinová, J., Svobodová, M., Oborná, I., et al. Kvalita embryí po ICSI v závislosti na rychlosti nástupu prvního buněčného dělení. Čes Gynek, 2006, 71, 3, s. 204–208.

7. Březinová, J., Oborná, I., Svobodová, M., Fingerová, H. Evaluation of day one embryo quality and IVF outcome – a comparison of two scoring systems. Reprod Biol Endocrinol., 2009, doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-9.

8. Conaghan, J., Hardy, K., Leese, H., et al. Culture of human preimplantation embryos to the blastocyste stage: a comparison of 3 media. Int J Dev Biol, 1998, 42, 7, p. 885–893.

9. Coskun, S., Hollanders, J., Al-Hassan, S., et al. Day 5 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a controlled randomized trial. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15, 9, p. 1947–1952.

10. Hlinka, D., Lazarovská, S., Rutarová, J., et al. Non-invasive monitoring of the timing of early embryo cleavages-objectively measurable predictor of human embryo viability. Čes Gynek, 2012, 77, 1, s. 52–57.

11. Källén, B., Finnström, O., Lindam, A., et al. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril, 2010, 94, 5, p. 1680–1683.

12. Kolibianakis, EM., Zikopoulos, K., Verpoest, W., et al. Should we advise patients undergoing IVF to start a cycle leading to a day 3 or a day 5 transfer? Hum Reprod, 2004, 19, 11, p. 2550–2554.

13. Lundin, K., Bergh, C., Hardarson, T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF. Hum Reprod, 2001, 16, 12, p. 2652–2657.

14. Montag, M., Liebenthorn, J., Kőster M. Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development? Placenta, 2011, 32, p. 252–256.

15. Papanikolaou, SG., Camus, M., Kolibianakis, EM., Van Landuyt, L. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med, 2006, 354, 11, p. 1139–1146.

16. Papanikolaou, SG., Kolibianakis, EM., Tournaye, H., et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod, 2008, 23, 1, p. 91–99.

17. Sakkas, D., Shoukir, Y., Chardonnes, D., et al. Early cleavage of human embryos to the two-cell stage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an indicator of embryo viability. Hum Reprod, 1998, 13, 1, p. 182–187.

18. Salumets, A., Hydén-Granskog, C., Mäkinen, S., et al. Early cleavage predicts the viability of human embryos in elective single embryo transfer procedures. Hum Reprod, 2003, 18, 4, p. 821–825.

19. Shoukir, Y., Campana, A., Farley, T., Sakkas, D. Early cleavage of in-vitro fertilized human embryos to the 2-cell stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality and viability. Hum Reprod, 1997, 12, 7, p. 1531–1536.

20. Wang, YA., Chapman, M., Costello, M., Sullivan, EA. Better perinatal outcomes following transfer of fresh blastocysts and blastocysts cultured from thawed cleavage embryos: a population-based study. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25, 6, p. 1536–1542.

Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicine

Article was published in

Czech Gynaecology

Issue 1

2013 Issue 1

Most read in this issue

This topic is also in:

Forgotten password

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.


Don‘t have an account?  Create new account