Table V

Generalized estimating equations assessing the association of the Eeva scores with implantation and live birth, alongside other potential confounders, in the total set of transferred embryos with known implantation and/or live-birth data and after stratification by type of cycle.

Type of cycleVariableImplantation
Live birth
OR95% CIP-valueE-valuebOR95% CIP-valueE-valueb
All cycles(n = 847 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 835 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.9201.440–5.9250.003a2.813.3171.615–6.8140.001a3.04
2 vs 52.3451.175–4.6810.016a2.432.4451.185–5.0410.015a2.5
3 vs 51.7960.861–3.7480.1182.022.2171.033–4.7590.041a2.34
4 vs 51.5360.706–3.3440.2791.781.5270.675–3.4540.311.78
Type of cycle (oocyte donation vs autologous PGT-A)0.7030.365–1.3550.2931.670.5650.291–1.0980.0921.99
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8090.569–1.1500.2381.460.7110.494–1.0220.0651.66
Type of transfer (FET vs fresh)0.9520.675–1.3420.7781.180.9830.687–1.4070.9251.1
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.3850.901–2.1280.1381.631.4750.920–2.3650.1061.72
Oocyte age0.9710.935–1.0090.1331.140.9560.920–0.9930.021a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0340.987–1.0830.1631.151.0230.974–1.0740.3641.12
Oocyte donation(n = 707 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 698 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 53.3851.507–7.6050.003a3.085.1322.089–12.605<0.001a3.96
2 vs 52.8771.300–6.3670.009a2.783.7191.508–9.1710.004a3.27
3 vs 52.2770.979–5.2970.0562.393.7411.450–9.6570.006a3.28
4 vs 51.8070.715–4.5640.2112.022.2800.802–6.4850.1222.39
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8270.580–1.1800.2961.430.7210.499–1.0410.0811.64
Type of transfer (FET vs Fresh)0.9960.703–1.4120.9841.051.0220.709–1.4730.9091.12
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.7701.066–2.9380.027a1.991.8821.045–3.3920.035a2.09
Oocyte age0.9660.929–1.0060.0921.150.9530.915–0.9930.022a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0500.997–1.1050.0661.181.0380.980–1.0990.2041.16
Autologous PGT-A(n = 140 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 137 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.0890.321–13.6140.4412.250.9160.161–5.2050.9211.26
2 vs 51.1620.210–6.4440.8641.370.7700.150–3.9590.7551.54
3 vs 50.6930.113–4.2640.6921.690.4280.071–2.5910.3552.43
4 vs 50.7310.122–4.3960.7321.620.4470.081–2.4660.3552.36
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)0.6400.263–1.5580.3251.860.8470.341–2.1040.7211.39
Oocyte age1.0160.909–1.1360.7781.10.9760.875–1.0900.6691.12
BMI (oocyte provider)0.9800.889–1.0820.6941.110.9760.885–1.0750.6211.12
Type of cycleVariableImplantation
Live birth
OR95% CIP-valueE-valuebOR95% CIP-valueE-valueb
All cycles(n = 847 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 835 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.9201.440–5.9250.003a2.813.3171.615–6.8140.001a3.04
2 vs 52.3451.175–4.6810.016a2.432.4451.185–5.0410.015a2.5
3 vs 51.7960.861–3.7480.1182.022.2171.033–4.7590.041a2.34
4 vs 51.5360.706–3.3440.2791.781.5270.675–3.4540.311.78
Type of cycle (oocyte donation vs autologous PGT-A)0.7030.365–1.3550.2931.670.5650.291–1.0980.0921.99
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8090.569–1.1500.2381.460.7110.494–1.0220.0651.66
Type of transfer (FET vs fresh)0.9520.675–1.3420.7781.180.9830.687–1.4070.9251.1
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.3850.901–2.1280.1381.631.4750.920–2.3650.1061.72
Oocyte age0.9710.935–1.0090.1331.140.9560.920–0.9930.021a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0340.987–1.0830.1631.151.0230.974–1.0740.3641.12
Oocyte donation(n = 707 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 698 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 53.3851.507–7.6050.003a3.085.1322.089–12.605<0.001a3.96
2 vs 52.8771.300–6.3670.009a2.783.7191.508–9.1710.004a3.27
3 vs 52.2770.979–5.2970.0562.393.7411.450–9.6570.006a3.28
4 vs 51.8070.715–4.5640.2112.022.2800.802–6.4850.1222.39
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8270.580–1.1800.2961.430.7210.499–1.0410.0811.64
Type of transfer (FET vs Fresh)0.9960.703–1.4120.9841.051.0220.709–1.4730.9091.12
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.7701.066–2.9380.027a1.991.8821.045–3.3920.035a2.09
Oocyte age0.9660.929–1.0060.0921.150.9530.915–0.9930.022a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0500.997–1.1050.0661.181.0380.980–1.0990.2041.16
Autologous PGT-A(n = 140 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 137 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.0890.321–13.6140.4412.250.9160.161–5.2050.9211.26
2 vs 51.1620.210–6.4440.8641.370.7700.150–3.9590.7551.54
3 vs 50.6930.113–4.2640.6921.690.4280.071–2.5910.3552.43
4 vs 50.7310.122–4.3960.7321.620.4470.081–2.4660.3552.36
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)0.6400.263–1.5580.3251.860.8470.341–2.1040.7211.39
Oocyte age1.0160.909–1.1360.7781.10.9760.875–1.0900.6691.12
BMI (oocyte provider)0.9800.889–1.0820.6941.110.9760.885–1.0750.6211.12

BMI: BMI of oocyte provider (kg/m2); CS1, culture strategy 1: Sanyo MCO-5M incubator and sequential culture media and Eeva Test 2.3; CS2, culture strategy 2: Geri+ and single-step culture medium and Eeva Test 3.0; OR: odds ratio; PGT-A: genetic testing for anueploidies.

a

P < 0.05, statistical significance of variable–outcome association.

b

Minimum strength of association, on the risk-ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and outcome to fully explain away the variable–outcome association.

Table V

Generalized estimating equations assessing the association of the Eeva scores with implantation and live birth, alongside other potential confounders, in the total set of transferred embryos with known implantation and/or live-birth data and after stratification by type of cycle.

Type of cycleVariableImplantation
Live birth
OR95% CIP-valueE-valuebOR95% CIP-valueE-valueb
All cycles(n = 847 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 835 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.9201.440–5.9250.003a2.813.3171.615–6.8140.001a3.04
2 vs 52.3451.175–4.6810.016a2.432.4451.185–5.0410.015a2.5
3 vs 51.7960.861–3.7480.1182.022.2171.033–4.7590.041a2.34
4 vs 51.5360.706–3.3440.2791.781.5270.675–3.4540.311.78
Type of cycle (oocyte donation vs autologous PGT-A)0.7030.365–1.3550.2931.670.5650.291–1.0980.0921.99
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8090.569–1.1500.2381.460.7110.494–1.0220.0651.66
Type of transfer (FET vs fresh)0.9520.675–1.3420.7781.180.9830.687–1.4070.9251.1
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.3850.901–2.1280.1381.631.4750.920–2.3650.1061.72
Oocyte age0.9710.935–1.0090.1331.140.9560.920–0.9930.021a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0340.987–1.0830.1631.151.0230.974–1.0740.3641.12
Oocyte donation(n = 707 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 698 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 53.3851.507–7.6050.003a3.085.1322.089–12.605<0.001a3.96
2 vs 52.8771.300–6.3670.009a2.783.7191.508–9.1710.004a3.27
3 vs 52.2770.979–5.2970.0562.393.7411.450–9.6570.006a3.28
4 vs 51.8070.715–4.5640.2112.022.2800.802–6.4850.1222.39
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8270.580–1.1800.2961.430.7210.499–1.0410.0811.64
Type of transfer (FET vs Fresh)0.9960.703–1.4120.9841.051.0220.709–1.4730.9091.12
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.7701.066–2.9380.027a1.991.8821.045–3.3920.035a2.09
Oocyte age0.9660.929–1.0060.0921.150.9530.915–0.9930.022a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0500.997–1.1050.0661.181.0380.980–1.0990.2041.16
Autologous PGT-A(n = 140 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 137 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.0890.321–13.6140.4412.250.9160.161–5.2050.9211.26
2 vs 51.1620.210–6.4440.8641.370.7700.150–3.9590.7551.54
3 vs 50.6930.113–4.2640.6921.690.4280.071–2.5910.3552.43
4 vs 50.7310.122–4.3960.7321.620.4470.081–2.4660.3552.36
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)0.6400.263–1.5580.3251.860.8470.341–2.1040.7211.39
Oocyte age1.0160.909–1.1360.7781.10.9760.875–1.0900.6691.12
BMI (oocyte provider)0.9800.889–1.0820.6941.110.9760.885–1.0750.6211.12
Type of cycleVariableImplantation
Live birth
OR95% CIP-valueE-valuebOR95% CIP-valueE-valueb
All cycles(n = 847 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 835 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.9201.440–5.9250.003a2.813.3171.615–6.8140.001a3.04
2 vs 52.3451.175–4.6810.016a2.432.4451.185–5.0410.015a2.5
3 vs 51.7960.861–3.7480.1182.022.2171.033–4.7590.041a2.34
4 vs 51.5360.706–3.3440.2791.781.5270.675–3.4540.311.78
Type of cycle (oocyte donation vs autologous PGT-A)0.7030.365–1.3550.2931.670.5650.291–1.0980.0921.99
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8090.569–1.1500.2381.460.7110.494–1.0220.0651.66
Type of transfer (FET vs fresh)0.9520.675–1.3420.7781.180.9830.687–1.4070.9251.1
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.3850.901–2.1280.1381.631.4750.920–2.3650.1061.72
Oocyte age0.9710.935–1.0090.1331.140.9560.920–0.9930.021a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0340.987–1.0830.1631.151.0230.974–1.0740.3641.12
Oocyte donation(n = 707 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 698 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 53.3851.507–7.6050.003a3.085.1322.089–12.605<0.001a3.96
2 vs 52.8771.300–6.3670.009a2.783.7191.508–9.1710.004a3.27
3 vs 52.2770.979–5.2970.0562.393.7411.450–9.6570.006a3.28
4 vs 51.8070.715–4.5640.2112.022.2800.802–6.4850.1222.39
Culture strategy (CS1 vs CS2)0.8270.580–1.1800.2961.430.7210.499–1.0410.0811.64
Type of transfer (FET vs Fresh)0.9960.703–1.4120.9841.051.0220.709–1.4730.9091.12
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)1.7701.066–2.9380.027a1.991.8821.045–3.3920.035a2.09
Oocyte age0.9660.929–1.0060.0921.150.9530.915–0.9930.022a1.18
BMI (oocyte provider)1.0500.997–1.1050.0661.181.0380.980–1.0990.2041.16
Autologous PGT-A(n = 140 KID transferred blastocysts)(n = 137 KLBD transferred blastocysts)
Eeva score
1 vs 52.0890.321–13.6140.4412.250.9160.161–5.2050.9211.26
2 vs 51.1620.210–6.4440.8641.370.7700.150–3.9590.7551.54
3 vs 50.6930.113–4.2640.6921.690.4280.071–2.5910.3552.43
4 vs 50.7310.122–4.3960.7321.620.4470.081–2.4660.3552.36
Day of transfer (Day 5 vs Day 6)0.6400.263–1.5580.3251.860.8470.341–2.1040.7211.39
Oocyte age1.0160.909–1.1360.7781.10.9760.875–1.0900.6691.12
BMI (oocyte provider)0.9800.889–1.0820.6941.110.9760.885–1.0750.6211.12

BMI: BMI of oocyte provider (kg/m2); CS1, culture strategy 1: Sanyo MCO-5M incubator and sequential culture media and Eeva Test 2.3; CS2, culture strategy 2: Geri+ and single-step culture medium and Eeva Test 3.0; OR: odds ratio; PGT-A: genetic testing for anueploidies.

a

P < 0.05, statistical significance of variable–outcome association.

b

Minimum strength of association, on the risk-ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and outcome to fully explain away the variable–outcome association.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close