Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 1363–1368 | Cite as

Vitrification can modify embryo cleavage stage after warming. Should we change endometrial preparation?

  • R. Cercas
  • C. Villas
  • I. Pons
  • C. Braña
  • S. Fernandez-Shaw



Studies have shown that embryo metabolism and cell cleavage after warming vitrified embryos is faster than after thawing frozen embryos. We study vitrified embryo transfer (VET) results depending on the developmental stage of warmed embryos and the duration of progesterone treatment before embryo transfer.


We designed a prospective study, patients were randomized in two groups, starting progesterone three (D + 3) or four days (D + 4) before embryo transfer. We recruited 88 patients with embryos vitrified on day 3.


We didn’t find statitistical differences in pregnancy rate when we transferred embryos in D + 3 vs D + 4 (38.2 % vs 40.5 % p ≥ 0.05). The day after warming, 54.6 % of embryos had developed to morula or early blastocyst, 32.4 % to cleavage stage and 13 % didn’t cleave. Transfers were with morula/blastocysts stage embryos (52.1 %; n:37), cleavage stage embryos (18.3 %; n:13) or mixed (29.6 %; n:21). Implantation rate was significantly higher in morula/blastocyst stage than in cleavage stage or mixed transfers (44 %, 22 % and 16.3 %; p = 0.011). Pregnancy and implantation rates were significantly higher in morula/blastocyst transfers on D + 4 than on D + 3 (68.7 % and 64.7 % vs 33.3 %, and 33.3 %, p = 0.033 and p = 0.034).


Our findings suggest that a majority of embryos will develop to morula/blastocyst stage after warming. VET results with morula/blastocysts, and after four days of progesterone supplementation, are better than with cleavage stage embryos.


Vitrification Progesterone Endometrium Blastocyst Embryo cleavage Implantation window 



The authors report no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:209–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, Gardner DK. A randomized controlled study of human day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1976–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desai N, Blackmon H, Szeptycki J, Goldfarb J. Cryoloop vitrification of human day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: post-vitrification development, pregnancy outcomes and live births. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:208–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desai N, AbdelHafez FF, Bedaiwy MA, Goldberg J, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Clinical pregnancy and live birth after transfer of embryos vitrified on day 3. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:808–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordts S, Roziers P, Campo R, Noto V. Survival and pregnancy outcome after ultrarapid freezing of human embryos. Fertil Steril. 1990;53:469–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martel D, Monier MN, Roche D, Psychoyos A. Hormonal dependence of pinopode formation at the uterine luminal surface. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:597–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Massai MR, Bergeron C, Martel D, de Ziegler D, Meduri G, Psychoyos A, Frydman R, Bouchard P. Physiological oestradiol and progesterone replacement cycles in women with ovarian failure: a model to study endometrial maturation and sex steroid receptor regulation by exogenous hormones. Hum Reprod. 1993;11:1828–34.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Fisch JD, Dasig D, Behr B. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:126–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nawroth F, Ludwig M. What is the “ideal” duration of progesterone supplementation before the transfer of cryopreserved-thawed embryos in estrogen/progesterone replacement protocols? Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1127–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nikas G, Drakakis P, Loutradis D, Mara-Skoufari C, Koumantakis E, Michalas S, Psychoyos A. Uterine pinopodes as markers of the “nidation window” in cycling women receiving exogenous oestradiol and progesterone. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1208–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nikas G, Develioglu OH, Toner JP, Jones HW. Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:787–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pantos K, Nikas G, Makrakis E, Stavrou D, Karantzis P, Grammatis M. Clinical value of endometrial pinopodes detection in artificial donation cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;9:86–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-satage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:91–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prapas Y, Prapas N, Jones EE, Duleba AJ, Olive DL, Chatziparasidou A, Vlassis G. The Windows for embryo transfer in oovyte donation cycles depends on the duration of progesterone therapy. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:720–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rall WF, Fahy GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at −196 °C by vitrification. Nature. 1985;313:573–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rama Raju GA, Haranath GB, Krishna KM, Prakash GJ, Madan K. Vitrification of human 8-cell embryos, a modified protocol for better pregnancy rates. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:434–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Remohí J, Pellicer A, Simon C, Navarro J (2002). Reproducción Humana, second ed. Mc Graw HillGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shapiro BS, Ritchter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST. A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers. Fertil. Steril. 2001;75:1126–1130.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sudoma I, Goncharova Y, Zukin V. Optimization of cryocicles by using pinopode detection in patiens with multiple implantation failure: preliminary report. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:590–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valojerdi MR, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Movaghar B. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:347–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage alter thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1513–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ziebe S, Bech B, Petersen K, Mikkelsen AL, Gabrielsen A, Nyboe Andersen A. Resumption of mitosis during post-thaw culture: a key parameter in selecting the right embryos for transfer. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:178–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Cercas
    • 1
  • C. Villas
    • 1
  • I. Pons
    • 1
  • C. Braña
    • 1
  • S. Fernandez-Shaw
    • 1
  1. 1.URH García del RealMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations