nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

18.02.2021 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Fertility technologies and how to optimize laboratory performance to support the shortening of time to birth of a healthy singleton: a Delphi consensus

verfasst von: Giovanni Coticchio, Barry Behr, Alison Campbell, Marcos Meseguer, Dean E Morbeck, Valerio Pisaturo, Carlos E Plancha, Denny Sakkas, Yanwen Xu, Thomas D’Hooghe, Evelyn Cottell, Kersti Lundin

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 5/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To explore how the assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratories can be optimized and standardized to enhance embryo culture and selection, to bridge the gap between standard practice and the new concept of shortening time to healthy singleton birth.

Methods

A Delphi consensus was conducted (January to July 2018) to assess how the ART laboratory could be optimized, in conjunction with existing guidelines, to reduce the time to a healthy singleton birth. Eight experts plus the coordinator discussed and refined statements proposed by the coordinator. The statements were distributed via an online survey to 29 participants (including the eight experts from step 1), who voted on their agreement/disagreement with each statement. Consensus was reached if ≥ 66% of participants agreed/disagreed with a statement. If consensus was not achieved for any statement, that statement was revised and the process repeated until consensus was achieved. Details of statements achieving consensus were communicated to the participants.

Results

Consensus was achieved for all 13 statements, which underlined the need for professional guidelines and standardization of lab processes to increase laboratory competency and quality. The most important points identified were the improvement of embryo culture and embryo assessment to shorten time to live birth through the availability of more high-quality embryos, priority selection of the most viable embryos and improved cryosurvival.

Conclusion

The efficiency of the ART laboratory can be improved through professional guidelines on standardized practices and optimized embryo culture environment, assessment, selection and cryopreservation methodologies, thereby reducing the time to a healthy singleton delivery.

Bosch E, Bulletti C, Copperman AB, Fanchin R, Yarali H, Petta CA, et al. How time to healthy singleton delivery could affect decision-making during infertility treatment: a Delphi consensus. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;38(1):118–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.09.019.CrossRefPubMed

ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Europe the continent with the lowest fertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(6):590–602. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq023.CrossRef

Farquhar CM, Bhattacharya S, Repping S, Mastenbroek S, Kamath MS, Marjoribanks J, et al. Female subfertility. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019;5(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-018-0058-8.CrossRefPubMed

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Practice Committee. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):633–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.032.CrossRef

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):719–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000444440.96486.61.CrossRef

Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Sunkara SK, Garcia Velasco JA, Venetis C, Sakkas D, et al. Personalized ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology: study design considerations to move from hype to added value for patients. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):968–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.037.CrossRefPubMed

Annual Capri Workshop Group. Towards a more pragmatic and wiser approach to infertility care. Human Reprod. 2019;34(7):1165–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez101.CrossRef

Goswami M, Hyslop LA, Murdoch AP. NHS-funded IVF: consequences of NICE implementation. Hum Fertil. 2013;16(2):121–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2013.786840.CrossRef

Domar AD, Rooney K, Hacker MR, Sakkas D, Dodge LE. Burden of care is the primary reason why insured women terminate in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):1121–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.130.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Ferrick L, Lee YSL, Gardner DK. Reducing time to pregnancy and facilitating the birth of healthy children through functional analysis of embryo physiology. Biol Reprod. 2019;101(6):1124–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioz005.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Harbottle S, Hughes C, Cutting R, Roberts S, Brison D. Elective single embryo transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines. Hum Fertil. 2015;18(3):165–83.CrossRef

12.

Hughes EG. Singleton birth at term: an old alarm or a new debate? Human Reprod. 2015;30(10):2254–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev205.CrossRef

13.

Sunkara SK, Zheng W, D’Hooghe T, Longobardi S, Boivin J. Time as an outcome measure in fertility-related clinical studies: long-awaited. Human Reprod. 2020;35(8):1732–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa138.CrossRef

14.

Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):393–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Barnhart KT. Live birth is the correct outcome for clinical trials evaluating therapy for the infertile couple. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1205–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.026.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Clarke JF, van Rumste MM, Farquhar CM, Johnson NP, Mol BW, Herbison P. Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates? Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1647–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Steurer J. The Delphi method: an efficient procedure to generate knowledge. Skelet Radiol. 2011;40(8):959–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z.CrossRef

18.

Bulletti C, Allegra A, Mignini Renzini M, Vaiarelli A. How fixed versus variable gonadotropin dose during controlled ovarian stimulation could influence the management of infertility patients undergoing IVF treatment: a national Delphi consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1770214.

19.

De los Santos MJ, Apter S, Coticchio G, Debrock S, Lundin K, Plancha CE, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Human Reprod. 2016;31(4):685–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew016.CrossRef

20.

Basile N, Caiazzo M, Meseguer M. What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(3):193–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0000000000000166.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1481–9 e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.016.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Cairo Consensus Group. ‘There is only one thing that is truly important in an IVF laboratory: everything’ Cairo Consensus Guidelines on IVF Culture Conditions. Reprod BioMed Online. 2020;40:33–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.10.003.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Katz-Jaffe MG, McReynolds S, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. The role of proteomics in defining the human embryonic secretome. Mol Hum Reprod. 2009;15(5):271–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gap012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Botros L, Sakkas D, Seli E. Metabolomics and its application for non-invasive embryo assessment in IVF. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14(12):679–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gan066.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Kovacs GL, Montsko G, Zrinyi Z, Farkas N, Varnagy A, Bodis J. Non-invasive assessment of viability in human embryos fertilized in vitro. EJIFCC. 2016;27(2):112–21.PubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Murphy NM, Samarasekera TS, Macaskill L, Mullen J, Rombauts LJF. Genome sequencing of human in vitro fertilisation embryos for pathogenic variation screening. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):3795. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60704-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Concolino D, Degennaro E, Parini R. Delphi consensus on the current clinical and therapeutic knowledge on Anderson-Fabry disease. Eur J Intern Med. 2014;25(8):751–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2014.07.009.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Girolomoni G, Altomare G, Ayala F, Berardesca E, Calzavara Pinton P, Chimenti S, et al. Differential management of mild-to-severe psoriasis with biologic drugs: an Italian Delphi consensus expert panel. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26(2):128–33. https://doi.org/10.3109/09546634.2014.907466.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Lassalle B, Testart J, Renard JP. Human embryo features that influence the success of cryopreservation with the use of 1,2 propanediol. Fertil Steril. 1985;44(5):645–51.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Edgar DH, Karani J, Gook DA. Increasing dehydration of human cleavage-stage embryos prior to slow cooling significantly increases cryosurvival. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;19(4):521–5.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Alpha Scientists In Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Human Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der037.CrossRef

32.

ISO. Quality management systems – requirements. Geneva: International Standards Organisation; 2015.

33.

ISO. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Geneva: International Standards Organisation; 2017.

34.

ISO. Medical laboratories – requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: International Standards Organisation; 2012.

35.

College of American Pathologists. Laboratory accreditation program. College of American Pathologists, Northfiled, IL. 2019. https://www.cap.org/laboratory-improvement/accreditation/laboratory-accreditation-program. Accessed 12 September 2019.

36.

European Union. Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. European Union: Strasbourg; 2004.

37.

European Union. COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells. In: The Commission of the European Communities, editor. Brussels: European Commission; 2006.

38.

European Union. COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/39/EU of 26 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/17/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the testing of human tissues and cells Text with EEA relevance. European Commission: Brussels; 2012.

39.

European Union. COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. Brussels: European Commission; 2006.

40.

European Union. COMMISSION DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/565 of 8 April 2015 amending Directive 2006/86/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the coding of human tissues and cells Text with EEA relevance. European Commission: Brussels; 2015.

41.

European Union. Commission Directive (EU) 2015/566 of 8 April 2015 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC as regards the procedures for verifying the equivalent standards of quality and safety of imported tissues and cells. Text with EEA relevance. European Commission: Brussels; 2015.

42.

Fabozzi G, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Vaiarelli A, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L. Which key performance indicators are most effective in evaluating and managing an in vitro fertilization laboratory? Fertil Steril. 2020;114(1):9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.054.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Hughes C. Association of clinical embryologists - guidelines on good practice in clinical embryology laboratories 2012. Hum Fertil. 2012;15(4):174–89. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2012.747891.CrossRef

44.

ESHRE. Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35(5):494–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.015.CrossRef

45.

Forte M, Faustini F, Maggiulli R, Scarica C, Romano S, Ottolini C, et al. Electronic witness system in IVF-patients perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(9):1215–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0759-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, Erb K, Mocanu E, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reprod. 2017;32(10):1957–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex264.CrossRef

47.

Society for Assisted Reproductive T, American Society for Reproductive M. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2000 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1207–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.01.017.CrossRef

48.

Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(7):1588–609. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew082.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Arvis P, Lehert P, Guivarc’h-Leveque A. Simple adaptations to the Templeton model for IVF outcome prediction make it current and clinically useful. Human Reprod. 2012;27(10):2971–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des283.CrossRef

50.

Rienzi L, Bariani F, Dalla Zorza M, Romano S, Scarica C, Maggiulli R, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols for ensuring traceability during IVF. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(4):516–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.06.018.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Roy TK, Brandi S, Tappe NM, Bradley CK, Vom E, Henderson C, et al. Embryo vitrification using a novel semi-automated closed system yields in vitro outcomes equivalent to the manual Cryotop method. Human Reprod. 2014;29(11):2431–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu214.CrossRef

52.

Dal Canto M, Moutier C, Brambillasca F, Guglielmo MC, Bartolacci A, Fadini R, et al. The first report of pregnancies following blastocyst automated vitrification in Europe. J Gynecol Obstet Human Reprod. 2019;48(7):537–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.05.012.CrossRef

53.

ESHRE Working Group on Time-lapse Technology. Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa008.CrossRef

54.

Khosravi P, Kazemi E, Zhan Q, Malmsten JE, Toschi M, Zisimopoulos P, et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0096-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, de Neubourg D, Dumoulin JC, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6945.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(23):2392–402. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041032.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Park DS, Kim JW, Chang EM, Lee WS, Yoon TK, Lyu SW. Strategies in the transfer of varying grades of vitrified-warmed blastocysts in women aged over 35 years: a propensity-matched analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;45(4):849–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13897.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Zech NH, Lejeune B, Puissant F, Vanderzwalmen S, Zech H, Vanderzwalmen P. Prospective evaluation of the optimal time for selecting a single embryo for transfer: day 3 versus day 5. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(1):244–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.070.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reprod. 2008;23(1):91–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem339.CrossRef

60.

Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):244–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.029.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Robinson RD. Success rates and pregnancy outcomes in thawed embryos transferred after extended culture: cryopreserved embryos versus cleavage stage cryopreserved embryos. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(1):59–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.023.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Simón C, Gómez C, Cabanillas S, Vladimirov I, Castillón G, Giles J, et al. A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF. Reprod BioMed Online. 2020;41:402–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.002.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;6:CD002118. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.CrossRef

64.

Sfontouris IA, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Viana IG, Navarro PA, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(10):1261–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0774-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

La Marca A, Minasi MG, Sighinolfi G, Greco P, Argento C, Grisendi V, et al. Female age, serum antimullerian hormone level, and number of oocytes affect the rate and number of euploid blastocysts in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(5):777–83 e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.029.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Motato Y, de los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):376–84 e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Esteves SC, Carvalho JF, Bento FC, Santos J. A novel predictive model to estimate the number of mature oocytes required for obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the ART calculator. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:99. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00099.CrossRef

68.

Reed ML, Hamic A, Thompson DJ, Caperton CL. Continuous uninterrupted single medium culture without medium renewal versus sequential media culture: a sibling embryo study. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1783–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.008.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Mantikou E, Bontekoe S, van Wely M, Seshadri S, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Low oxygen concentrations for embryo culture in assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(3):209. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms055.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Nastri CO, Nobrega BN, Teixeira DM, Amorim J, Diniz LMM, Barbosa MWP, et al. Low versus atmospheric oxygen tension for embryo culture in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):95–104 e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.037.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Garcia-Martinez S, Sanchez Hurtado MA, Gutierrez H, Sanchez Margallo FM, Romar R, Latorre R, et al. Mimicking physiological O₂ tension in the female reproductive tract improves assisted reproduction outcomes in pig. Mol Hum Reprod. 2018;24(5):260–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gay008.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Morin SJ. Oxygen tension in embryo culture: does a shift to 2% O₂ in extended culture represent the most physiologic system? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(3):309–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0880-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Park H, Bergh C, Selleskog U, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Lundin K. No benefit of culturing embryos in a closed system compared with a conventional incubator in terms of number of good quality embryos: results from an RCT. Human Reprod. 2015;30(2):268–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu316.CrossRef

74.

Paulson RJ, Reichman DE, Zaninovic N, Goodman LR, Racowsky C. Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):584–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.042.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Ebner T, Shebl O, Moser M, Mayer RB, Arzt W, Tews G. Group culture of human zygotes is superior to individual culture in terms of blastulation, implantation and life birth. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;21(6):762–8.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Rebollar-Lazaro I, Matson P. The culture of human cleavage stage embryos alone or in groups: effect upon blastocyst utilization rates and implantation. Reprod Biol. 2010;10(3):227–34.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Racowsky C, Vernon M, Mayer J, Ball GD, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, et al. Standardization of grading embryo morphology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):1152–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.042.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(10):1115–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1686.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Santos Filho E, Noble JA, Poli M, Griffiths T, Emerson G, Wells D. A method for semi-automatic grading of human blastocyst microscope images. Human Reprod. 2012;27(9):2641–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des219.CrossRef

80.

Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):412–9 e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.021.CrossRefPubMed

81.

Machtinger R, Racowsky C. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26(3):210–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.10.021.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Manna C, Nanni L, Lumini A, Pappalardo S. Artificial intelligence techniques for embryo and oocyte classification. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26(1):42–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.09.015.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Tran D, Cooke S, Illingworth PJ, Gardner DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Human Reprod. 2019;34(6):1011–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez064.CrossRef

84.

Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Human Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der256.CrossRef

85.

Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, Witmer J, Palao LM, Gvakharia M. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):369–75.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Aparicio-Ruiz B, Basile N, Perez Albala S, Bronet F, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Automatic time-lapse instrument is superior to single-point morphology observation for selecting viable embryos: retrospective study in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1379–85 e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1117.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1287–94 e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.738.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Freour T, Le Fleuter N, Lammers J, Splingart C, Reignier A, Barriere P. External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):917–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.111.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Kirkegaard K, Campbell A, Agerholm I, Bentin-Ley U, Gabrielsen A, Kirk J, et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29(2):156–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.04.011.CrossRefPubMed

90.

Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, Aparicio Ruiz B, Garcia Velasco JA, Remohi J, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Human Reprod. 2015;30(2):276–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu331.CrossRef

91.

Athayde Wirka K, Chen AA, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, Behr B, et al. Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(6):1637–48 e1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.02.050.CrossRefPubMed

92.

Liu Y, Chapple V, Roberts P, Matson P. Prevalence, consequence, and significance of reverse cleavage by human embryos viewed with the use of the Embryoscope time-lapse video system. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1295–300 e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.1235.CrossRefPubMed

93.

Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, Kirk J, Herrero J, Escriba MJ, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1458–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1135.CrossRefPubMed

94.

Lagalla C, Tarozzi N, Sciajno R, Wells D, Di Santo M, Nadalini M, et al. Embryos with morphokinetic abnormalities may develop into euploid blastocysts. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34(2):137–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.11.008.CrossRefPubMed

95.

Zhan Q, Ye Z, Clarke R, Rosenwaks Z, Zaninovic N. Direct unequal cleavages: embryo developmental competence, genetic constitution and clinical outcome. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0166398. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166398.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

96.

Freour T, Dessolle L, Lammers J, Lattes S, Barriere P. Comparison of embryo morphokinetics after in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection in smoking and nonsmoking women. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1944–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.136.CrossRefPubMed

97.

Wolff HS, Fredrickson JR, Walker DL, Morbeck DE. Advances in quality control: mouse embryo morphokinetics are sensitive markers of in vitro stress. Human Reprod. 2013;28(7):1776–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det102.CrossRef

98.

Mastenbroek S, van der Veen F, Aflatoonian A, Shapiro B, Bossuyt P, Repping S. Embryo selection in IVF. Human Reprod. 2011;26(5):964–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der050.CrossRef

99.

Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.027.CrossRefPubMed

100.

De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, Santos-Ribeiro S, Camus M, Van de Velde H, Tournaye H, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Human Reprod. 2016;31(11):2442–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew219.CrossRef

101.

Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(5):536–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms016.CrossRefPubMed

102.

Alpha Scientists In Reproductive M. The Alpha consensus meeting on cryopreservation key performance indicators and benchmarks: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25(2):146–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.006.CrossRef

103.

Debrock S, Peeraer K, Fernandez Gallardo E, De Neubourg D, Spiessens C, D’Hooghe TM. Vitrification of cleavage stage day 3 embryos results in higher live birth rates than conventional slow freezing: a RCT. Human Reprod. 2015;30(8):1820–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev134.CrossRef

104.

Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(2):139–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmw038.CrossRefPubMed

105.

Gosden R. Cryopreservation: a cold look at technology for fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):264–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.029.CrossRefPubMed

106.

Tiegs AW, Sun L, Neal SA, Morin SJ, Werner MD, Scott RT Jr. Worth the wait? Findings from culturing embryos through day 7. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.026.CrossRef

107.

Swain JE, Carrell D, Cobo A, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Smith GD. Optimizing the culture environment and embryo manipulation to help maintain embryo developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(3):571–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.035.CrossRefPubMed

108.

Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(1):2–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv034.CrossRefPubMed

109.

Racowsky C, Jackson KV, Cekleniak NA, Fox JH, Hornstein MD, Ginsburg ES. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(3):558–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00565-8.CrossRefPubMed

110.

McEvoy K B D, Roberts S, Turner C, Adeniyi T, Wood L, Wilson Y, Lloyd A, Critchlow D, Hunter H, Horne G. A one year retrospective analysis comparing live birth outcomes from embryos grown and transferred from an undisturbed time-lapse culture system with a conventional culture system. 32 Annual Meeting of ESHRE; Helsinki, Finland 2016. p. P-106.

111.

Zhang JQ, Li XL, Peng Y, Guo X, Heng BC, Tong GQ. Reduction in exposure of human embryos outside the incubator enhances embryo quality and blastulation rate. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20(4):510–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.12.027.CrossRefPubMed

112.

Sundvall L, Ingerslev HJ, Breth Knudsen U, Kirkegaard K. Inter- and intra-observer variability of time-lapse annotations. Human Reprod. 2013;28(12):3215–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det366.CrossRef

113.

Hou W, Xu Y, Li R, Song J, Wang J, Zeng Y, et al. Role of aneuploidy screening in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases in young women. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(5):928–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.017.CrossRefPubMed

114.

Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1071–1079.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.1346.CrossRefPubMed

115.

De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Human Reprod. 2018;33(9):1586–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey242.CrossRef

116.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016 assisted reproductive technology - national summary report. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/art/pdf/2016-report/ART-2016-National-Summary-Report.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2019.

Titel: Fertility technologies and how to optimize laboratory performance to support the shortening of time to birth of a healthy singleton: a Delphi consensus
verfasst von: Giovanni Coticchio
Barry Behr
Alison Campbell
Marcos Meseguer
Dean E Morbeck
Valerio Pisaturo
Carlos E Plancha
Denny Sakkas
Yanwen Xu
Thomas D’Hooghe
Evelyn Cottell
Kersti Lundin
Publikationsdatum: 18.02.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 5/2021
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02077-5

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugat hält solide Tumoren in Schach

16.05.2024 Zielgerichtete Therapie Nachrichten

Trastuzumab deruxtecan scheint auch jenseits von Lungenkrebs gut gegen solide Tumoren mit HER2-Mutationen zu wirken. Dafür sprechen die Daten einer offenen Pan-Tumor-Studie.

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

15.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Frauen mit lokalem oder metastasiertem Brustkrebs, die Statine einnehmen, haben eine niedrigere krebsspezifische Mortalität als Patientinnen, die dies nicht tun, legen neue Daten aus den USA nahe.

S3-Leitlinie zur unkomplizierten Zystitis: Auf Antibiotika verzichten?

15.05.2024 Harnwegsinfektionen Nachrichten

Welche Antibiotika darf man bei unkomplizierter Zystitis verwenden und wovon sollte man die Finger lassen? Welche pflanzlichen Präparate können helfen? Was taugt der zugelassene Impfstoff? Antworten vom Koordinator der frisch überarbeiteten S3-Leitlinie, Prof. Florian Wagenlehner.

Gestationsdiabetes: In der zweiten Schwangerschaft folgenreicher als in der ersten

13.05.2024 Gestationsdiabetes Nachrichten

Das Risiko, nach einem Gestationsdiabetes einen Typ-2-Diabetes zu entwickeln, hängt nicht nur von der Zahl, sondern auch von der Reihenfolge der betroffenen Schwangerschaften ab.

Update Gynäkologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Fertility technologies and how to optimize laboratory performance to support the shortening of time to birth of a healthy singleton: a Delphi consensus

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugat hält solide Tumoren in Schach

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

S3-Leitlinie zur unkomplizierten Zystitis: Auf Antibiotika verzichten?

Gestationsdiabetes: In der zweiten Schwangerschaft folgenreicher als in der ersten

Update Gynäkologie

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2021

Growth hormone supplementation during ovarian stimulation improves oocyte and embryo outcomes in IVF/PGT-A cycles of women who are not poor responders

More than the oocyte source, egg donors as patients: a national picture of United States egg donors

Adding new ingredients to the recipe for successful embryo transfers

Genetic factors as potential molecular markers of human oocyte and embryo quality

Trophectoderm biopsy protocols may impact the rate of mosaic blastocysts in cycles with pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

Live birth in a complete zona-free patient: a case report

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugat hält solide Tumoren in Schach

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

S3-Leitlinie zur unkomplizierten Zystitis: Auf Antibiotika verzichten?

Gestationsdiabetes: In der zweiten Schwangerschaft folgenreicher als in der ersten

Update Gynäkologie