System Maintenance Notice

Please note that maintenance work is scheduled between 4 AM and 5 AM - CET. During this time, you may experience reduced performance. Thanks for your patience.

Publications

Journal Article Ppublish

PubMed: 39680145 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07850-2

How to balance the live birth rate and the multiple pregnancy rate by selecting the cleavage-stage embryo number and quality for POSEIDON Group 1 and Group 2? A retrospective study.

Arch Gynecol Obstet 311(2):507-517

Authors: Huiqing He, Rang Liu, Qiuju Zhang, Lan Geng, Zhenhui Hou, Chang Xu, Yanpei Cao, Xi Xia

Affiliations

  • Center for Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, No. 1120 Lotus Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518036, Guangdong, China. Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, 515000, Guangdong, China.
  • Center for Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, No. 1120 Lotus Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518036, Guangdong, China.
  • Intelligence Hospital Research Academy, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, 518036, Guangdong, China.
  • Center for Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, No. 1120 Lotus Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518036, Guangdong, China.

Abstract

PURPOSE

For unexpected low-prognosis patients (Group 1 and Group 2) defined by POSEIDON criteria, how to maximize the live birth rate while controlling the multiple birth rate by tailoring the embryo transfer number and quality?

METHODS

This was a retrospective study, including patients from Poseidon Group 1 (N = 672) and Group 2 (N = 503) who underwent cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Logistic regression was used for the comparative analysis of clinical outcomes among subgroups divided by the number and quality of embryos.

RESULTS

For Group 1, compared to transferring a single good-quality embryo (GQE), a good-quality embryo with a poor-quality embryo (GQE + PQE) did not significantly improve the live birth rate, although increasing in value (40.5% vs 31.9%, P = 0.272), meanwhile obviously raised the multiple birth rate to 28.1% (P = 0.042). For Group 2, double embryo transfer (DET) was associated with a higher live birth rate than single embryo transfer (SET) (22.4% vs 6.3%, P = 0.001) and further analysis indicated that the similar trend observed in the GQE + PQE group compared to the GQE group (26.1% vs 8.5%, P = 0.017) with statistical significance, but without a significant increase in the multiple birth rate (8.3%, P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The study indicated that  a single good-quality cleavage-stage embryo was an option for patients in Poseidon Group 1 to avoid the risk of multiple pregnancies. DET with mixed quality cleavage-stage embryo might be an alternative for Poseidon Group 2, given that it improved the pregnancy outcomes while controlling the multiple birth rates.

MeSH

Pregnancy, Birth Rate, Parturition, Retrospective Studies, Obstetrics, Embryo Transfer, Gynecology, Live Birth, Pregnancy Rate, Pregnancy, Multiple