Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine (대한생식의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of embryo catheter loading technique on the live birth rate

  • Omidi, Marjan (Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Halvaei, Iman (Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mangoli, Esmat (Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Khalili, Mohammad Ali (Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Razi, Mohammad Hossein (Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2015.08.25
  • Accepted : 2015.11.11
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Embryo loading (EL) is a major step in embryo transfer (ET) and affect on the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF). This study aimed to compare the effect of two different EL techniques on the rates of pregnancy and delivery in IVF/ET cycles. Methods: 207 fresh ET and 194 Frozen-thawed ET (FET) cycles were included in this retrospective study. Two groups (A and B) were defined based on the EL technique used. In group A, the entire catheter was flushed with Ham's F-10 medium. The embryos were then drawn into the catheter using one air bracket. In group B, $70{\mu}L$ of air was aspirated into the syringe and the catheter was flushed using Ham's F10 medium. The medium, air, embryos, air, and finally another layer of medium were then sequentially drawn into the catheter. The main outcome measures were the pregnancy and delivery rates. Results: The groups did not differ with respect to the etiology of infertility, the source of spermatozoa, the quality of the embryos, the type of EL catheter, and the ease of transfer. The pregnancy rate was similar between two groups. In fresh ET cycles, a higher delivery rate was observed in group B than it group A (78.1% vs. 60%, p=0.1). In FET cycles, the rate of delivery was significantly higher in group B than in group A to a nonsignificant extent (88.9% vs. 58.8%, p=0.06). Conclusion: EL techniques did not have a significant impact on the delivery rate in either fresh or FET cycles.

Keywords

References

  1. Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA. Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1149-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.5.1149
  2. Halvaei I, Khalili MA, Razi MH, Agha-Rahimi A, Nottola SA. Impact of different embryo loading techniques on pregnancy rates in in vitro fertlization/embryo transfer cycles. J Hum Reprod Sci 2013;6:65-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.112385
  3. Christianson MS, Zhao Y, Shoham G, Granot I, Safran A, Khafagy A, et al. Embryo catheter loading and embryo culture techniques: results of a worldwide web-based survey. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:1029-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0250-z
  4. Mains L, Van Voorhis BJ. Optimizing the technique of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010;94:785-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.030
  5. Cohen J. Embryo replacement technology. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Postgraduate Program of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; 1998 October 3-4; San Francisco, CA.
  6. 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;18: 1848-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg359
  7. Moore DE, Soules MR, Klein NA, Fujimoto VY, Agnew KJ, Eschenbach DA. Bacteria in the transfer catheter tip influence the livebirth rate after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2000;74:1118-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01624-1
  8. Abou-Setta AM. Firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis using direct and adjusted indirect comparisons. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:191-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60860-7
  9. Abou-Setta AM. Air fluid versus fluid-only models of embryo catheter loading: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:80-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60767-5
  10. Hazlett WD, Meyer LR, Nasta TE, Mangan PA, Karande VC. Impact of EmbryoGlue as the embryo transfer medium. Fertil Steril 2008;90:214-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.063
  11. Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Polz W, Tews G. The ineffective loading process of the embryo transfer catheter alters implantation and pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 2001;76: 630-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01980-X
  12. Marcus SF, Brinsden PR. Analysis of the incidence and risk factors associated with ectopic pregnancy following in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1995;10:199-203. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/10.1.199
  13. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: WHO Press; 2010.
  14. Khalili MA, Mir-Rokni F, Kalantar SM. Application of vitality tests on asthenozoospermic semen from infertile men. Iran Biomed J 1999;3:77-81.
  15. Halvaei I, Khalili MA, Soleimani M, Razi MH. Evaluating the role of first polar body morphology on rates of fertilization and embryo development in ICSI cycles. Int J Fertil Steril 2011;5:110-5.
  16. Khalili MA, Mojibian M, Sultan AM. Role of oocyte morphology on fertilization and embryo formation in assisted reproductive techniques. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2005;10:72-7.
  17. Hill GA, Freeman M, Bastias MC, Rogers BJ, Herbert CM 3rd, Osteen KG, et al. The influence of oocyte maturity and embryo quality on pregnancy rate in a program for in vitro fertilizationembryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1989;52:801-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)61034-8
  18. Xue Y, Tong X, Jiang L, Zhu H, Yang L, Zhang S. Effect of vitrification versus slow freezing of human day 3 embryos on ${\beta}$-hCG levels. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:1037-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0259-3
  19. de Camargo Martins AM, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen C, Oliveira JB, Contart P, et al. Ultrasound guidance is not necessary during easy embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 2004;21:421-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-004-8757-3
  20. Gardner DK, Lane M. Embryo culture systems. In: Trouson AO, Gardner DK, editors. Handbook of in vitro fertilization. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999. p. 205-64.
  21. Khan I, Staessen C, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Human serum albumin versus serum: a comparative study on embryo transfer medium. Fertil Steril 1991;56:98-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)54425-2
  22. Groeneveld E, de Leeuw B, Vergouw CG, Visser OW, Lambers MJ, Heymans MW, et al. Standardization of catheter load speed during embryo transfer: comparison of manual and pump-regulated embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:163-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.10.017
  23. Menezo Y, Arnal F, Humeau C, Ducret L, Nicollet B. Increased viscosity in transfer medium does not improve the pregnancy rates after embryo replacement. Fertil Steril 1989;52:680-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60987-1
  24. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK. Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril 2001;76:863-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02731-5
  25. Moreno V, Balasch J, Vidal E, Calafell JM, Civico S, Vanrell JA. Air in the transfer catheter does not affect the success of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1366-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.09.060
  26. Zinger M, Wrona DA, Desanti R, Miller CE, Miller CE. Movement of intrauterine air bubble during embryo transfer (ET) catheter withdrawal is not a prognostic indicator. Fertil Steril 2004;82 Suppl 2:S63.
  27. 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;164:52-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.05.025
  28. Krampl E, Zegermacher G, Eichler C, Obruca A, Strohmer H, Feichtinger W. Air in the uterine cavity after embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1995;63:366-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)57370-1
  29. Allahbadia GN, Gandhi GN, Kadam KS, Virk S, Kaur K. A prospective randomized comparison of two different embryo transfer catheter loading techniques. Fertil Steril 2005;84 Suppl 1:S114-5.
  30. Leeton J, Trounson A, Jessup D, Wood C. The technique for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1982;38:156-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)46451-4
  31. Poindexter AN 3rd, Thompson DJ, Gibbons WE, Findley WE, Dodson MG, Young RL. Residual embryos in failed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1986;46:262-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)49523-3
  32. Montag M, Kupka M, van der Ven K, van der Ven H. Embryo transfer on day 3 using low versus high fluid volume. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;102:57-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(01)00579-6
  33. Tomas 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;17:2632-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.10.2632
  34. Nouri K, Tempfer CB, Walch K, Promberger R, Dag S, Ott J. Predictive value of the time interval between embryo loading and transfer for IVF/ICSI success: a prospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015;13:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0048-6

Cited by

  1. A prospective study comparing two embryo-transfer soft catheters vol.21, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20170018
  2. Do trained reproductive endocrinologists perform better than their trainees? Comparing clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates after transfer of single fresh blastocysts vol.35, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1127-3
  3. A New Concept in Minimally Invasive Embryo Transfer vol.20, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2020-0034
  4. Do embryo transfer catheters affect pregnancy success? vol.5, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.823728