Comparison of double blastocyst transfer versus sequential transfer on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with frozen embryo transfer and a history of recurrent implantation failure: An RCT.
{"title":"Comparison of double blastocyst transfer versus sequential transfer on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with frozen embryo transfer and a history of recurrent implantation failure: An RCT.","authors":"Nooshin Hatamizadeh, Maryam Eftekhar, Zahra Aminimajomerd, Shahrzad Moeinaddini","doi":"10.18502/ijrm.v23i4.18783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recurrent implantation failure poses a significant challenge in assisted reproductive technology despite the transfer of high-quality embryos over multiple cycles.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between double blastocyst transfer and sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer in individuals undergoing frozen embryo transfer and those with a history of repeated implantation failure.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Yazd Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd, Iran from February to November 2024 and included 125 women ( <math><mo><</mo></math> 45 yr) with a history of more than 2 implantation failures. Participants were randomized into 2 groups: one receiving double blastocyst transfer and the other receiving sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer. The primary and secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, early abortion, multiple pregnancy, and implantation rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Chemical pregnancy rates were comparable (51.6% for double blastocyst transfer vs. 49.2% for sequential transfer, p = 0.790), as were clinical pregnancy rates (46.9% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.769). Early abortion rates showed no significant difference (27.3% vs. 20%, p = 0.498). Multiple pregnancy rates were similar (23.3% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.820), and implantation rates did not differ significantly (28.9% vs. 27.86%, p = 0.889).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer does not significantly improve assisted reproductive technology outcomes compared with double blastocyst transfer in individuals with recurrent implantation failure. Both methods had similar efficacy rates in terms of chemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, early abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, and implantation rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":14386,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Reproductive Biomedicine","volume":"23 4","pages":"313-322"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12268269/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Reproductive Biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v23i4.18783","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Recurrent implantation failure poses a significant challenge in assisted reproductive technology despite the transfer of high-quality embryos over multiple cycles.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between double blastocyst transfer and sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer in individuals undergoing frozen embryo transfer and those with a history of repeated implantation failure.
Materials and methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Yazd Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd, Iran from February to November 2024 and included 125 women ( 45 yr) with a history of more than 2 implantation failures. Participants were randomized into 2 groups: one receiving double blastocyst transfer and the other receiving sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer. The primary and secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, early abortion, multiple pregnancy, and implantation rates.
Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Chemical pregnancy rates were comparable (51.6% for double blastocyst transfer vs. 49.2% for sequential transfer, p = 0.790), as were clinical pregnancy rates (46.9% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.769). Early abortion rates showed no significant difference (27.3% vs. 20%, p = 0.498). Multiple pregnancy rates were similar (23.3% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.820), and implantation rates did not differ significantly (28.9% vs. 27.86%, p = 0.889).
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer does not significantly improve assisted reproductive technology outcomes compared with double blastocyst transfer in individuals with recurrent implantation failure. Both methods had similar efficacy rates in terms of chemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, early abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, and implantation rates.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine (IJRM), formerly published as "Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine (ISSN: 1680-6433)", is an international monthly scientific journal for who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. This journal accepts Original Papers, Review Articles, Short Communications, Case Reports, Photo Clinics, and Letters to the Editor in the fields of fertility and infertility, ethical and social issues of assisted reproductive technologies, cellular and molecular biology of reproduction including the development of gametes and early embryos, assisted reproductive technologies in model system and in a clinical environment, reproductive endocrinology, andrology, epidemiology, pathology, genetics, oncology, surgery, psychology, and physiology. Emerging topics including cloning and stem cells are encouraged.