Zygote intrafallopian tube transfer versus intrauterine cleavage or blastocyst stage transfer after intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in patients with repeated implantation failure: A prospective follow‐up study

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the outcomes between zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) with intrauterine day-3 (cleavage stage) embryo transfer and intrauterine day-5 (blastocyst stage) embryo transfer in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Material and Methods: This prospective study was performed at Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, between January 2012 and January 2014. Two hundred fifty women with more than three unexplained implantation failures were divided non-randomly into three groups according to embryonic age and methods used as follows: (i) intrauterine cleavage-stage embryo transfer (n = 100); (ii) intrauterine blastocyst-stage embryo transfer (n = 50); and (iii) ZIFT (n = 100). Implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates were our main outcomes. Results: Patients' characteristics and ovarian response were comparable among the three groups. Implantation rate (56.1% vs 27.9%) was significantly higher in the blastocyst group as compared to the ZIFT group; however, clinical pregnancy rate (38% vs 23%) was not statistically significantly different between the two groups, but due to the significantly higher miscarriage rate (34.7% vs 5.3%) in the ZIFT group, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the blastocyst group (P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage groups in terms of implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates. Conclusion: We do not recommend the use of the ZIFT procedure for patients with repeated implantation failures. It seems that replication of cleavage-or blastocyst-stage embryo transfer is more efficient and affordable.

Efficacy of therapies and interventions for repeated embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Secondary outcomes Pooling of results failed to show a benefit on embryo implantation chances (random effects model, OR 3.73; 95% CI 0.69-20.27; p = 0.13; I 2 = 64%) 18,150 . MPR resulted significantly lower in women who underwent ZIFT (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.91; p = 0.04) 163 . Shahrokh Tehraninejad et al did not observe an impact on MR (OR 2.09; 95% CI 0.70-6.21; p = 0.19) 163 .…”

“…MPR resulted significantly lower in women who underwent ZIFT (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.91; p = 0.04) 163 . Shahrokh Tehraninejad et al did not observe an impact on MR (OR 2.09; 95% CI 0.70-6.21; p = 0.19) 163 .…”

“…ZIFT. Three observational studies investigated the possible beneficial effect of ZIFT in women with RIF 18,150,163 . 18,150,163 and live birth (random effects model, OR 3.43; 95% CI 0.03-43.80; p = 0.62; I 2 = 91%) in women who underwent ZIFT (Fig.…”