%0 Journal Article %T Should we consider day-2 and day-3 embryo morphology before day-5 transfer when blastocysts reach a similar good quality? %+ Equipe 5 : METHODS - Méthodes de l’évaluation thérapeutique des maladies chroniques (CRESS - U1153) %+ Unité de Biologie Fonctionnelle et Adaptative (BFA (UMR_8251 / U1133)) %A Herbemont, C %A Sarandi, S %A Boujenah, J %A Cedrin-Durnerin, I %A Sermondade, N %A Vivot, A %A Poncelet, C %A Grynberg, M %A Sifer, C %< avec comité de lecture %@ 1472-6483 %J Reproductive BioMedicine Online %I Elsevier %V 35 %N 5 %P 521-528 %8 2017 %D 2017 %R 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.07.014 %K STAGE EMBRYOS %K CLEAVAGE %K TIME %K MULTICENTER %K CYCLES %K INTEROBSERVER %K SELECTION %Z Life Sciences [q-bio]Journal articles %X Clinical outcomes of 291 day-5 blastocyst transfers carried out between January 2012 and March 2016 were retrospectively compared according to their quality at day 2 and 3. Inclusion criteria were female age younger than 37 years; first or second IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle; quality of the transferred blastocyst: blastocoele B3 or higher; inner-cell-mass A/B; trophectoderm A/B; and known implantation outcome for each transferred blastocyst. Blastocysts were classified into good-quality and poor-quality embryo groups at day 2 and 3. Implantation (38.7% versus 41.4), clinical pregnancy (40.3% versus 45.9%), miscarriage (22.2% versus 26.7%;) and live birth rates (37.4% versus 38.8%) were comparable in day 2 good and poor-quality embryo groups. No signficiant differences in morphology of transferred blastocysts at day 3 were found. Multivariable analysis highlighted that poor or good embryo quality at day 2 and day 3 were not predictive of the implantation of good-quality blastocysts (at day 2: adjusted odds ratio = 0.82 CI 95% 0.49 to 1.38; at day 3: adjusted odds ratio = 1.39; CI 95% 0.77 to 2.52). Good-quality blastocyst transfer should, therefore, be carried out irrespective of embryo quality at cleavage stage, as it may not compromise success rates in a good-prognosis population. (C) 2017 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. %G English %2 https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-03108255/document %2 https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-03108255/file/j.rbmo.2017.07.014%20%282%29.pdf %L hal-03108255 %U https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-03108255 %~ UNIV-PARIS5 %~ UNIV-PARIS7 %~ CNRS %~ INRA %~ USPC %~ AGREENIUM %~ INRAE %~ UNIV-PARIS %~ UP-SANTE %~ UP-SCIENCES %~ BFA %~ CRESS %~ TEST3-HALCNRS