Blastocyst quality and reproductive and perinatal outcomes: a multinational multicentre observational study.

Shuqin Zhao, Rui Wang, Yanhe Liu, Ben W J Mol, Dean E Morbeck, Masoud Afnan, Vincent Chapple, Jean Scott, Lan Xia, Haowen Zou, Songguo Xue, Hongqing Liao, Xiaohong Bai, Lintao Xue, Gensheng Liu, Fengqin Xu, Elizabeth R Hammond, James M Kemper

Journal: Human reproduction (Oxford, England) 2023;38(12):2391-2399

PMID: 37877423

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION

Does the transfer of single low-grade blastocysts result in acceptable reproductive and perinatal outcomes compared to the transfer of single good-grade blastocysts?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The transfer of single low-grade blastocysts resulted in a reduced live birth rate of around 30% (14% for very low-grade blastocysts) compared to 44% for single good-grade blastocysts, but does not lead to more adverse perinatal outcomes.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

It is known that low-grade blastocysts can result in live births. However, the current studies are limited by relatively small sample sizes and single-centre designs. Furthermore, evidence on perinatal outcomes after transferring low-grade blastocysts is limited.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a multi-centre, multi-national retrospective cohort study of 10 018 women undergoing 10 964 single blastocyst transfer cycles between 2009 and 2020 from 14 clinics across Australia, China, and New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Blastocysts were graded individually based on assessment of the morphology and development of the inner cell mass (ICM) and trophectoderm (TE), and were grouped into three quality categories: good- (AB, AB, or BA), moderate- (BB), and low-grade (grade C for ICM or TE) blastocysts. CC blastocysts were individually grouped as very low-grade blastocysts. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equation was used to analyse the association between blastocyst quality and live birth as well as other reproductive outcomes. Binomial, multinomial logistic, or linear regression was used to investigate the association between blastocyst quality and perinatal outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), adjusted OR (aOR), adjusted regression coefficient, and their 95% CIs are presented. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

There were 4386 good-grade blastocysts, 3735 moderate-grade blastocysts, and 2843 low-grade blastocysts were included in the analysis, for which the live birth rates were 44.4%, 38.6%, and 30.2%, respectively. Compared to good-grade blastocysts, the live birth rate of low-grade blastocysts was significantly lower (aOR of 0.48 (0.41-0.55)). Very low-grade blastocysts were associated with an even lower live birth rate (aOR 0.30 (0.18-0.52)) and their absolute live birth rate was 13.7%. There were 4132 singleton live births included in the analysis of perinatal outcomes. Compared with good-grade blastocysts, low-grade blastocysts had comparable preterm birth rates (<37 weeks, aOR 1.00 (0.65-1.54)), birthweight Z-scores (adjusted regression coefficient 0.02 (0.09-0.14)), and rates of very low birth weight (<1500 g, aOR 0.84 (0.22-3.25)), low birth weight (1500-2500 g, aOR 0.96 (0.56-1.65)), high birth weight (>4500 g, aOR 0.93 (0.37-2.32)), small for gestational age (aOR 1.63 (0.91-2.93)), and large for gestational age (aOR 1.28 (0.97-1.70)).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Due to the nature of the retrospective design, residual confounding could not be excluded. In addition, the number of events for some perinatal outcomes was small. Between-operator and between-laboratory variations in blastocyst assessment were difficult to control.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Patients undergoing IVF should be informed that low-grade blastocysts result in a lower live birth rate, however they do not increase the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Further research should focus on the criteria for embryos that should not be transferred and on the follow-up of long-term outcomes of offspring.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

H.Z. is supported by a Monash Research Scholarship. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). R.W. is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leadership Investigator grant (2009767). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy, travel support, and research funding from Merck. The other authors do not have competing interests to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Address: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.; Monash Women's, Monash Health, Clayton, Australia.; Fertility Associates, Auckland, New Zealand.; Department of Reproductive Medicine, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.; Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Tianjin Aiwei Hospital, Tianjin, China.; Reproductive Medical and Genetic Center, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, China.; Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hengyang Medical School, South China University, Hengyang, China.; Center for Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai East Hospital, Shanghai, China.; Center for Reproductive Medicine, Zaozhuang Marternal and Child Health Center, Zaozhuang, China.; Reproductive Medical Center of Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.; Fertility Solutions, Sunshine Coast, Australia.; Fertility North, Joondalup, Australia.; Qingdao United Family Hospital, Qingdao, China.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.; Aberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.; School of Human Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.; School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.; Bond University, Robina, Australia.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.