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.

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.