nach oben

Gynäkologische Endokrinologie

Erschienen in:

12.07.2023 | Künstliche Intelligenz | In der Diskussion

Time-lapse-Monitoring – Pro und Kontra

verfasst von: PD Dr. rer. nat. Verena Nordhoff, Dr. rer. nat. Claus Sibold, Dr. rer. nat. Jens Hirchenhain

Erschienen in: Gynäkologische Endokrinologie | Ausgabe 3/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Die medizinisch unterstützte Fortpflanzung („medically assisted reproduction“ [MAR]) hat sich seit den ersten erfolgreichen Schritten vor über 40 Jahren kontinuierlich weiterentwickelt. So sind die Kulturmedien und Kulturumgebungen viel komplexer als zu Beginn und können die Präimplantationsentwicklung der Embryonen bis zum Transfer – normalerweise am fünften Tag – optimal unterstützen. Allerdings ist die größte Herausforderung für das In-vitro-Fertilisations(IVF)-Labor die Identifizierung des einen Embryos mit dem besten Implantationspotenzial. Die Selektion erfolgt klassischerweise anhand bestimmter morphologischer Veränderungen in einer zeitlich korrekten Reihenfolge. Neue Techniken, wie das Time-lapse(TL)-Monitoring, haben interessante und vor allem dynamische Ereignisse in deren zeitlicher Entwicklung (Morphokinetik) für uns erstmals sichtbar gemacht. Viele dieser neuen morphokinetischen Parameter korrelieren mit dem Implantationspotenzial der einzelnen Blastozyste. Allerdings zeigen neueste Studien, dass der klinische Nutzen möglicherweise nicht in dem Maße vorhanden ist, wie das TL-Monitoring es verspricht. In der vorliegenden Zusammenfassung soll die aktuelle Studienlage kurz beleuchtet werden, zudem werden Vor- und Nachteile aufgeführt.

De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, Santos-Ribeiro S, Camus M, Van de Velde H, Tournaye H, Verheyen G (2016) Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod 31:2442–2449 PubMed

Sullivan EA, Wang YA, Hayward I, Chambers GM, Illingworth P, McBain J, Norman RJ (2012) Single embryo transfer reduces the risk of perinatal mortality, a population study. Hum Reprod 27:3609–3615 PubMed

Marconi N, Allen CP, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A (2022) Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies after blastocyst-stage embryo transfer compared with those after cleavage-stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 28(2):255–281 PubMed

Raja EA, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, McLernon DJ (2023) A comparison of perinatal outcomes following fresh blastocyst or cleavage stage embryo transfer in singletons and twins and between singleton siblings. Hum Reprod Open. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology (2011) The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 26(6):1270–1283

De los SMJ, Apter S, Coticchio G, Debrock S, Lundin K, Plancha CE, Prados F, Rienzi L, Verheyen G, Woodward B et al (2016) Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Hum Reprod 31:685–686

Storr A, Venetis CA, Cooke S, Kilani S, Ledger W (2017) Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists during selection of a single Day 5 embryo for transfer: a multicenter study. Hum Reprod 32(2):307–314 PubMed

Cimadomo D, Sosa Fernandez L, Soscia D, Fabozzi G, Benini F, Cesana A, Dal Canto MB, Maggiulli R, Muzzì S, Scarica C, Rienzi L, De Santis L (2022) Inter-centre reliability in embryo grading across several IVF clinics is limited: implications for embryo selection. Reprod Biomed Online 44(1):39–48 PubMed

Fordham DE, Rosentraub D, Polsky AL, Aviram T, Wolf Y, Perl O, Devir A, Rosentraub S, Silver DH, Gold ZY, Bronstein AM, Lara LM, Nagi BJ, Alvarez A, Munné S (2022) Embryologist agreement when assessing blastocyst implantation probability: is data-driven prediction the solution to embryo assessment subjectivity? Hum Reprod 37(10):2275–2290 PubMed

10.

Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J (2011) The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 26:2658–2671 PubMed

11.

Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A (2012) Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 98:1481–1489 PubMed

12.

Zhang JQ, Li XL, Peng Y, Guo X, Heng BC, Tong GQ (2010) Reduction in exposure of human embryos outside the incubator enhances embryo quality and blastulation rate. Reprod Biomed Online 20:510–515 PubMed

13.

Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CFL (2013) Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online 26:477–485 PubMed

14.

Coticchio G, Borini A, Zacà C, Makrakis E, Sfontouris I (2022) Fertilization signatures as biomarkers of embryo quality. Hum Reprod 37(8):1704–1711 PubMed

15.

Athayde Wirka K, Chen AA, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, Behr B, Suraj V, Tan L, Shen S (2014) Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril 101(e1635):1637–1648.e1‑5 PubMed

16.

Chen L, Zhang S, Gu Y, Peng Y, Huang Z, Gong F, Lin G (2022) Vacuolization in embryos on days 3 and 4 of in vitro development: Association with stimulation protocols, embryo development, chromosomal status, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Front Endocrinol 13:985741

17.

Lagalla C, Tarozzi N, Sciajno R, Wells D, Di Santo M, Nadalini M, Distratis V, Borini A (2017) Embryos with morphokinetic abnormalities may develop into euploid blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online 34(2):137–146 PubMed

18.

Coticchio G, Lagalla C, Sturmey R, Pennetta F, Borini A (2019) The enigmatic morula: mechanisms of development, cell fate determination, self-correction and implications for ART. Hum Reprod Update 25(4):422–438 PubMed

19.

Hur C, Nanavaty V, Yao M, Desai N (2023) The presence of partial compaction patterns is associated with lower rates of blastocyst formation, sub-optimal morphokinetic parameters and poorer morphologic grade. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 21(1):12 PubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Tvrdonova K, Belaskova S, Rumpikova T, Malenovska A, Rumpik D, Myslivcova Fucikova A, Malir F (2021) Differences in morphokinetic parameters and incidence of multinucleations in human embryos of genetically normal, abnormal and euploid embryos leading to clinical pregnancy. J Clin Med 10(21):5173 PubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Sayed S, Reigstad MM, Petersen BM, Schwennicke A, Hausken JW, Storeng R (2022) Nucleation status of Day 2 pre-implantation embryos, acquired by time-lapse imaging during IVF, is associated with live birth. PLoS ONE 17(9):e274502 PubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Soukhov E, Karavani G, Szaingurten-Solodkin I, Alfayumi-Zeadna S, Elharar G, Richter D, Wainstock T, Zeadna A, Levitas E, Har-Vardi I (2022) Prediction of embryo implantation rate using a sole parameter of timing of starting blastulation. Zygote 30(4):501–508 PubMed

23.

Eastick J, Venetis C, Cooke S, Chapman M (2023) Detailed analysis of cytoplasmic strings in human blastocysts: new insights. Zygote 31(1):78–84 PubMed

24.

Sciorio R, Meseguer M (2021) Focus on time-lapse analysis: blastocyst collapse and morphometric assessment as new features of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online 43(5):821–832 PubMed

25.

Cimadomo D, Marconetto A, Trio S, Chiappetta V, Innocenti F, Albricci L, Erlich I, Ben-Meir A, Har-Vardi I, Kantor B, Sakov A, Coticchio G, Borini A, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L (2022) Human blastocyst spontaneous collapse is associated with worse morphological quality and higher degeneration and aneuploidy rates: a comprehensive analysis standardized through artificial intelligence. Hum Reprod 37(10):2291–2306 PubMed

26.

Setti AS, Braga DPAF, Vingris L, Iaconelli A, Borges E (2022) Improved embryonic development and utilization rates with EmbryoScope: a within-subject comparison versus a benchtop incubator. Zygote 30(5):633–637 PubMed

27.

Kermack AJ, Fesenko I, Christensen DR, Parry KL, Lowen P, Wellstead SJ, Harris SF, Calder PC, Macklon NS, Houghton FD (2022) Incubator type affects human blastocyst formation and embryo metabolism: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 37(12):2757–2767 PubMed

28.

Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Marjoribanks J, Farquhar C (2019) Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Ahlström A, Lundin K, Lind AK, Gunnarsson K, Westlander G, Park H, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Thorsteinsdottir SA, Einarsson S, Åström M, Löfdahl K, Menezes J, Callender S, Nyberg C, Winerdal J, Stenfelt C, Jonassen BR, Oldereid N, Nolte L, Sundler M, Hardarson T (2017) A double-blind randomized controlled trial investigating a time-lapse algorithm for selecting Day 5 blastocysts for transfer. Hum Reprod 37(4):708–717

30.

Kieslinger DC, Vergouw CG, Ramos L, Arends B, Curfs MHJM, Slappendel E, Kostelijk EH, Pieters MHEC, Consten D, Verhoeven MO, Besselink DE, Broekmans F, Cohlen BJ, Smeenk JMJ, Mastenbroek S, de Koning CH, van Kasteren YM, Moll E, van Disseldorp J, Brinkhuis EA, Kuijper EAM, van Baal WM, van Weering HGI, van der Linden PJQ, Gerards MH, Bossuyt PM, van Wely M, Lambalk CB (2023) Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 401(10386):1438–1446 PubMed

31.

Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, Baker VL, Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Gvakharia M, Loewke KE, Shen S (2013) Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril 100(2):412–419.e5 PubMed

32.

Diamond MP, Suraj V, Behnke EJ, Yang X, Angle MJ, Lambe-Steinmiller JC, Watterson R, Athayde Wirka K, Chen AA, Shen S (2015) Using the Eeva Test™ adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience. J Assist Reprod Genet 32(1):61–68 PubMed

33.

Zhang XD, Zhang Q, Han W, Liu WW, Shen XL, Yao GD, Shi SL, Hu LL, Wang SS, Wang JX, Zhou JJ, Kang WW, Zhang HD, Luo C, Yu Q, Liu RZ, Sun YP, Sun HX, Wang XH, Quan S, Huang GN (2022) Comparison of embryo implantation potential between time-lapse incubators and standard incubators: a randomized controlled study. Reprod Biomed Online 45(5):858–866 PubMed

34.

Riegler MA, Stensen MH, Witczak O, Andersen JM, Hicks SA, Hammer HL, Delbarre E, Halvorsen P, Yazidi A, Holst N, Haugen TB (2021) Artificial intelligence in the fertility clinic: status, pitfalls and possibilities. Hum Reprod 36(9):2429–2442 PubMed

35.

Bormann CL, Thirumalaraju P, Kanakasabapathy MK, Kandula H, Souter I, Dimitriadis I, Gupta R, Pooniwala R, Shafiee H (2020) Consistency and objectivity of automated embryo assessments using deep neural networks. Fertil Steril 113(4):781–787 PubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Curchoe CL, Bormann CL (2018) Artificial intelligence and machine learning for human reproduction and embryology presented at ASRM and ESHRE 2018. J Assist Reprod Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01408-x CrossRef

37.

Liao Q, Zhang Q, Feng X, Huang H, Xu H, Tian B, Liu J, Yu Q, Guo N, Liu Q, Huang B, Ma D, Ai J, Xu S, Li K (2021) Development of deep learning algorithms for predicting blastocyst formation and quality by time-lapse monitoring. Commun Biol 4(1):415 PubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Huang B, Zheng S, Ma B, Yang Y, Zhang S, Jin L (2022) Using deep learning to predict the outcome of live birth from more than 10,000 embryo data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 22(1):36 PubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Berntsen J, Rimestad J, Lassen JT, Tran D, Kragh MF (2022) Robust and generalizable embryo selection based on artificial intelligence and time-lapse image sequences. PLoS ONE 17(2):e262661 PubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Cimadomo D, Chiappetta V, Innocenti F, Saturno G, Taggi M, Marconetto A, Casciani V, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Coticchio G, Ahlström A, Berntsen J, Larman M, Borini A, Vaiarelli A, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L (2023) Towards automation in IVF: pre-clinical validation of a deep learning-based embryo grading system during PGT‑A cycles. J Clin Med 12(5):1806 PubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, García-Velasco J, Meseguer M (2014) Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril 101(3):699–704 PubMed

42.

Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, Casciani V, Scarselli F, Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Varricchio MT, Greco E (2016) Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod 31(10):2245–2254 PubMed

43.

Barnes J, Brendel M, Gao VR, Rajendran S, Kim J, Li Q, Malmsten JE, Sierra JT, Zisimopoulos P, Sigaras A, Khosravi P, Meseguer M, Zhan Q, Rosenwaks Z, Elemento O, Zaninovic N, Hajirasouliha I (2023) A non-invasive artificial intelligence approach for the prediction of human blastocyst ploidy: a retrospective model development and validation study. Lancet Digit Health 5(1):e28–e40 PubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Titel: Time-lapse-Monitoring – Pro und Kontra
verfasst von: PD Dr. rer. nat. Verena Nordhoff
Dr. rer. nat. Claus Sibold
Dr. rer. nat. Jens Hirchenhain
Publikationsdatum: 12.07.2023
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Schlagwort: Künstliche Intelligenz
Erschienen in: Gynäkologische Endokrinologie / Ausgabe 3/2023
Print ISSN: 1610-2894
Elektronische ISSN: 1610-2908
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10304-023-00514-5

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

27.11.2023 | Hypertonie | Nachrichten

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Schulterschmerz in der Praxis gezielt managen"

Springer Medizin

Time-lapse-Monitoring – Pro und Kontra

Zusammenfassung

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Gestationshypertonie durch Energy-Drinks?

Brustkrebs-Mortalität bei vaginaler Östrogentherapie nicht erhöht

Epilepsie und Schwangerschaft: Folsäure in hoher Dosierung eher schädlich?

Einfacher Fragebogen erleichtert geriatrisches Assessment

Update Gynäkologie

Live-Webinar "Schulterschmerz in der Praxis gezielt managen"

Springer Medizin

Zusammenfassung

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2023

Mitteilungen der DMG

Aktuelle Aspekte der endokrinen Therapie der Endometriose und der Adenomyose

Kombinierte orale Kontrazeption in der Perimenopause

Endometriose

Ist Endometriose eine systemische Erkrankung?

Sonography for pelvic endometriosis

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Gestationshypertonie durch Energy-Drinks?

Brustkrebs-Mortalität bei vaginaler Östrogentherapie nicht erhöht

Epilepsie und Schwangerschaft: Folsäure in hoher Dosierung eher schädlich?

Einfacher Fragebogen erleichtert geriatrisches Assessment

Update Gynäkologie