Comparison of double blastocyst transfer versus sequential transfer on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with frozen embryo transfer and a history of recurrent implantation failure: An RCT

RCT OA: gold CC-BY-NC-4.0
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-08-01 ⓘ

Sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer did not significantly improve pregnancy or implantation outcomes compared to double blastocyst transfer in women with recurrent implantation failure.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-23 · read from full text ⓘ

This randomized clinical trial compared double blastocyst transfer against sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer in women under 45 with a history of recurrent implantation failure. The study found no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding chemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, early miscarriage, multiple gestation, or implantation rates. Although the authors note that some prior literature suggests benefits for sequential transfer, their data indicate comparable efficacy for both strategies in this specific patient population. Relevance to endometriosis: uterine adenomyosis is listed as an exclusion criterion for participants, but the paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recurrent implantation failure poses a significant challenge in assisted reproductive technology despite the transfer of high-quality embryos over multiple cycles. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between double blastocyst transfer and sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer in individuals undergoing frozen embryo transfer and those with a history of repeated implantation failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Yazd Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd, Iran from February to November 2024 and included 125 women ( < 45 yr) with a history of more than 2 implantation failures. Participants were randomized into 2 groups: one receiving double blastocyst transfer and the other receiving sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer. The primary and secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, early abortion, multiple pregnancy, and implantation rates. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Chemical pregnancy rates were comparable (51.6% for double blastocyst transfer vs. 49.2% for sequential transfer, p = 0.790), as were clinical pregnancy rates (46.9% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.769). Early abortion rates showed no significant difference (27.3% vs. 20%, p = 0.498). Multiple pregnancy rates were similar (23.3% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.820), and implantation rates did not differ significantly (28.9% vs. 27.86%, p = 0.889). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that sequential single cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer does not significantly improve assisted reproductive technology outcomes compared with double blastocyst transfer in individuals with recurrent implantation failure. Both methods had similar efficacy rates in terms of chemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, early abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, and implantation rates.
Full text 20,097 characters · extracted from pmc-nxml · 2 sections · click to expand

Section

N. Hatamizadeh collected data and analyzed the data. M. Eftekhar designed and managed the study. Z. Aminimajomerd contributed to data collection. Sh. Moeinaddini contributed to data collection. All authors contributed to literature review, preparation of manuscript, and approval of the finished version.

Coi Statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: pmc-nxml ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-04T09:26:46.659050+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:50:50.276477+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T02:00:01.467718+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0