Ghost - Undeveloping Blastocyst

[candidkiwi]

Hi Ghost,

I hope you might shed some light on this for me. I was fortunate to have a BFP last September following my first IVF cycle. Sadly, I lost my little girl at 38 weeks in May - stillborn from the cord wrapping tightly around her neck. My OB told me that my two frozen blastocysts offered a high chance of pregnancy through FET because of my sucessful BFP with my fresh embryo (3 day transfer) - is this true? Also, I had my FET on Sunday but there was a hitch. The first blastocyst was thawed overnight and the embriologist told me that although the blast was still alive Sunday morning, it had 'not developed' and therefore was not viable to go back. They therefore thawed my only other blast on Sunday morning - about an hour before my FET. My question is two-fold: If the first blast was still alive but not developing how would they know whether the second (last) blast would not do the same thing given the shorter timescale? I asked for both blasts to be placed back, as I could not face the heartbreak of rejecting one just because it was not developing. My other question is, if the first blast was still alive, does it still have a chance of thriving in the uterus or am I deluding myself?
Your advice would be appreciated.

[Ghost]

Hi Ghost,

I hope you might shed some light on this for me. I was fortunate to have a BFP last September following my first IVF cycle. Sadly, I lost my little girl at 38 weeks in May - stillborn from the cord wrapping tightly around her neck. My OB told me that my two frozen blastocysts offered a high chance of pregnancy through FET because of my sucessful BFP with my fresh embryo (3 day transfer) - is this true? Also, I had my FET on Sunday but there was a hitch. The first blastocyst was thawed overnight and the embriologist told me that although the blast was still alive Sunday morning, it had 'not developed' and therefore was not viable to go back. They therefore thawed my only other blast on Sunday morning - about an hour before my FET. My question is two-fold: If the first blast was still alive but not developing how would they know whether the second (last) blast would not do the same thing given the shorter timescale? I asked for both blasts to be placed back, as I could not face the heartbreak of rejecting one just because it was not developing. My other question is, if the first blast was still alive, does it still have a chance of thriving in the uterus or am I deluding myself?
Your advice would be appreciated.

I'm not sure exactly what they mean by "still alive but not developing". A blast will still be a blast the next day. Perhaps they meant something specific, like it did not start hatching yet (not such a bad thing), or did not re-expand (bad) or it had a necrotic ICM (bad). Sounds like something was wrong with it, but I could only guess what it might be.

Transferring it can't hurt, as long as you're willing to risk twins. From their statement, that risk sounds pretty low.

The other one might have made it. No way to know.

I agree that more time helps. But a quick transfer right after thaw is a common protocol, and it works pretty well.

[candidkiwi]

Thanks for that valued advice Ghost - one further question - what is the difference between hatching and re-expanding?

[Ghost]

Thanks for that valued advice Ghost - one further question - what is the difference between hatching and re-expanding?

A thawed blastocyst will be shriveled, like a raisin (assuming it was conventionally frozen, not vitrified). It takes some time to re-expand.

Hatching is when an expanding blastocyst (any expanding blastocyst, fresh or thawed) pushes outward against the zona, ruptures the zona, herneates through the rupture, and emerges free of the zona. This is a necessary part of growth and development, as only a hatched blast can implant.

[Melo_P]

Hey Candid kiwi

Just wanted to say I am sorry to hear of your heartbreaking loss. I wish you the best for the next go.

We are almost neighbours both being on this tiny island of NZ!

Best
M