The clinical consequences of mosaicism depend on which chromosome is involved, and when and where an error occurs. Mitotic rescue of a meiotic error or a very early mitotic error will typically lead to general mosaicism while a mitotic error at a specific cell lineage point typically leads to confined mosaicism. The clinical consequences of mosaicism are dependent on numerous aspects, with the consequences being unique for each event.

Comprehensive chromosome screening is typically used for aneuploidy analysis of blastocysts. It is believed that either day of blastocyst development is acceptable. Euploidy rates and outcomes were examined between day 5 and day 6 blastocysts in two studies. First, euploidy rates of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts were examined on a per-embryo and per-patient basis. Second, outcomes were compared when only euploid day 5 or day 6 blastocysts were transferred in a cryopreserved embryo transfer cycle. In cycles (n = 70) that had blastocysts biopsied on both day 5 and day 6, day 5 blastocysts had a higher chance of being euploid than day 6 blastocysts (125/229 [54.6%]) and (77/180 [42.8%]), respectively (P = 0.0231). Similarly, euploid rates in blastocysts from patients (n = 193) with day 5 biopsy, day 6 biopsy, or both, were significantly higher in day 5 (235/421 [55.8%]) compared with day 6 (184/413 [44.6%]) blastocysts (P = 0.0014). In the second study, 50 women (36.1 ± 4.3 years) and 39 women (35.1 ± 3.8 years) with only euploid day 5 or euploid day 6 blastocysts transferred during a cryopreserved embryo transfer had similar cycle outcomes. Although underpowered, these data suggest that euploid day 6 blastocysts are as capable of positive outcomes as their euploid day 5 counterparts.

Trophectoderm biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) has been shown to increase implantation and pregnancy rates. Some patients desire CCS on previously cryopreserved blastocysts, resulting in blastocysts that are thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified and then warmed again. The effect of two cryopreservation procedures and two thawing/warming procedures on outcomes has not been effectively studied. Cycles were divided into two groups: group 1 patients underwent a cryopreserved embryo transfer with euploid blastocysts that were vitrified and warmed once; group 2 patients had a cryopreserved embryo transfer of a euploid blastocyst that was cryopreserved, thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified and warmed. Groups 1 and 2 included 85 and 17 women aged 35.6 ± 3.9 and 35.3 ± 4.9 years, respectively (not significantly different). Blastocyst survival in group 1 (114/116, 98.3%) and survival of second warming in group 2 (21/24, 87.5%) was significantly different (P = 0.0354). There was no difference between biochemical (68.2% and 62.5%) and clinical (61.2% and 56.3%) pregnancy rates, implantation rate (58.4% and 52.4%) and live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (54.0% and 47.6%) between groups 1 and 2, respectively. Although it is unconventional to thaw/warm, biopsy, revitrify and rewarm blastocysts for cryopreserved embryo transfer, the results indicate that outcomes are not compromised. Trophectoderm biopsy and screening the embryos for chromosomal abnormalities has been reported to increase implantation and pregnancy rates. There is a category of patients requesting chromosomal screening on previously cryopreserved blastocysts. This scenario requires blastocysts to be thawed/warmed, biopsied, cryopreserved, and thawed/warmed again. The effect of double cryopreservation procedures and double thawing/warming procedures on pregnancy is unknown. Patients were divided into two groups, group 1 underwent a cryopreserved embryo transfer with a chromosomally normal blastocyst that was vitrified and warmed once and group 2 included patients that had a cryopreserved embryo transfer of a chromosomally normal blastocyst that was cryopreserved, thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified, and rewarmed. A total of 85 and 17 women aged 35.6 ± 3.9 and 35.3 ± 4.9 years were included in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The survival rate for group 1 (114 of 116, 98.3%) compared with the second warming for group 2 (21 of 24, 87.5%) was significantly higher. There was no difference between biochemical (68.2% and 62.5%), and clinical pregnancies (61.2% and 56.3%), implantation (58.4% and 52.4%), and live birth/ongoing rates (54.0% and 47.6%) between groups 1 and 2. Although it is unconventional to twice cryopreserve and twice thaw/warm a blastocyst, our results indicate that outcomes are not compromised.