nach oben

Erschienen in:

29.05.2023 | Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy helps to achieve a live birth with fewer transfer cycles for the blastocyst FET patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure

verfasst von: Sidong Wang, Luochuan Liu, Minyue Ma, Hui Wang, Yibing Han, Xinmeng Guo, William S. B. Yeung, Yanfei Cheng, Huiting Zhang, Fengming Dong, Bolun Zhang, Ye Tian, Jiangnan Song, Hongmei Peng, Yuanqing Yao

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 2/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the value of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a screening test for patients suffering from unexplained recurrent implantation failure (RIF).

Methods

After screening patients in one reproductive medicine center, twenty-nine, forty-nine and thirty-eight women (< 40 years old) who had suffered unexplained RIF with PGT-A, or RIF without PGT-A, or no RIF with PGT-A were included. The clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per transfer, the conservative and optimal cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (CCPR) and live birth rates (CLBR) after three blastocyst FETs were analyzed.

Results

The live birth rate per transfer was significantly higher in the RIF + PGT-A group than that in the RIF + NO PGT-A group (47.6% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.014). After 3 cycles of FET, RIF + PGT-A group had significantly higher conservative CLBR and optimal CLBR compared to the RIF + NO PGT-A group (69.0% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.002 and 73.7% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.016), but had similar conservative and optimal CLBRs compared to the NO RIF + PGT-A group. The number of FET cycles required when half women achieved a live birth was 1 in the PGT-A group and 3 in RIF + NO PGT-A group. The miscarriage rates were not different between the RIF + PGT-A and RIF + NO PGT-A, RIF + PGT-A and NO RIF + PGT-A groups.

Conclusion

PGT-A did be superior in reducing the number of transfer cycles required to achieve a similar live birth rate. Further studies to identify the RIF patients who would benefit most from PGT-A are necessary.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Busnelli A et al (2020) How common is real repeated implantation failure? An indirect estimate of the prevalence. Reprod Biomed Online 40(1):91–97PubMed

Cimadomo D et al (2021) Definition, diagnostic and therapeutic options in recurrent implantation failure: an international survey of clinicians and embryologists. Hum Reprod 36(2):305–317PubMed

Bashiri A, Halper KI, Orvieto R (2018) Recurrent Implantation Failure-update overview on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and future directions. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 16(1):121PubMedPubMedCentral

Ni T et al (2020) Comprehensive analysis of the associations between previous pregnancy failures and blastocyst aneuploidy as well as pregnancy outcomes after PGT-A. J Assist Reprod Genet 37(3):579–588PubMedPubMedCentral

Pirtea P et al (2021) Rate of true recurrent implantation failure is low: results of three successive frozen euploid single embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 115(1):45–53PubMed

Theobald R, SenGupta S, Harper J (2020) The status of preimplantation genetic testing in the UK and USA. Hum Reprod 35(4):986–998PubMedPubMedCentral

Mochizuki L, Gleicher N (2020) The PGS/PGT-A controversy in IVF addressed as a formal conflict resolution analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 37(3):677–687PubMedPubMedCentral

Cornelisse S et al (2020) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD005291PubMed

Yan J et al (2021) Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med 385(22):2047–2058PubMed

10.

Ozgur K et al (2019) Single best euploid versus single best unknown-ploidy blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: a randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 36(4):629–636PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Munne S et al (2019) 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 112(6):1071-1079 e7PubMed

12.

Gleicher N, Patrizio P, Brivanlou A (2021) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy—a castle built on sand. Trends Mol Med 27(8):731–742PubMed

13.

Murphy LA et al (2019) To test or not to test? A framework for counselling patients on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Hum Reprod 34(2):268–275PubMed

14.

Group, E.P.-S.P.-A.W. et al (2020) ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the detection of structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations. Hum Reprod Open 3:hoaa017

15.

Sciorio R, Dattilo M (2020) PGT-A preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and embryo selection in routine ART cycles: time to step back? Clin Genet 98(2):107–115PubMed

16.

Patrizio P et al (2019) Worldwide live births following the transfer of chromosomally “Abnormal” embryos after PGT/A: results of a worldwide web-based survey. J Assist Reprod Genet 36(8):1599–1607PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Sacchi L et al (2019) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy improves clinical, gestational, and neonatal outcomes in advanced maternal age patients without compromising cumulative live-birth rate. J Assist Reprod Genet 36(12):2493–2504PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Verpoest W et al (2018) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 33(9):1767–1776PubMed

19.

Ubaldi FM et al (2017) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril 107(5):1173–1180PubMed

20.

Lee HL et al (2015) In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet 32(3):435–444PubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Bhatt SJ et al (2021) Pregnancy outcomes following in vitro fertilization frozen embryo transfer (IVF-FET) with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL): a SART-CORS study. Hum Reprod 36(8):2339–2344PubMed

22.

Murugappan G et al (2016) Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod 31(8):1668–1674PubMed

23.

Sato T et al (2020) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod 35(1):255PubMed

24.

Tong J et al (2021) Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of trophectoderm biopsy for recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients: a retrospective study. Reprod Sci 28(7):1923–1929PubMed

25.

Modest AM et al (2018) IVF success corrected for drop-out: use of inverse probability weighting. Hum Reprod 33(12):2295–2301PubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Wilkinson J, Roberts SA, Vail A (2017) Developments in IVF warrant the adoption of new performance indicators for ART clinics, but do not justify the abandonment of patient-centred measures. Hum Reprod 32(6):1155–1159PubMed

27.

Kemper JM et al (2020) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: are we examining the correct outcomes? Hum Reprod 35(11):2408–2412PubMed

28.

Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S (2015) Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod 30(12):2703–2707PubMed

29.

Voncina SM et al (2021) Sperm DNA fragmentation index and cumulative live birth rate in a cohort of 2,713 couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Fertil Steril 116(6):1483–1490

30.

Cameron NJ et al (2017) Cumulative live birth rates following miscarriage in an initial complete cycle of IVF: a retrospective cohort study of 112 549 women. Hum Reprod 32(11):2287–2297PubMed

31.

Luke B et al (2012) Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med 366(26):2483–2491PubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Xu B et al (2018) Cumulative live birth rates in more than 3,000 patients with poor ovarian response: a 15-year survey of final in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 109(6):1051–1059PubMed

33.

Gardner DK et al (2019) Reprint of: blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 112(4 Suppl1):e81–e84PubMed

34.

Ghobara T, Gelbaya TA, Ayeleke RO (2017) Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD003414PubMed

35.

Koot YEM et al (2019) What is the prognosis for a live birth after unexplained recurrent implantation failure following IVF/ICSI? Hum Reprod 34(10):2044–2052PubMed

36.

Rajkhowa M, Algar V, Sharma V (2000) Factors influencing the cumulative conception rate and discontinuation of in-vitro fertilisation treatment for infertility. J Reprod Fertil Abstr Ser 25:71

37.

Pantou A et al (2022) The impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes in high risk patients. J Assist Reprod Genet 39(6):1341–1349PubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Wells D, Delhanty JDA (2000) Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 6(11):1055–1062PubMed

39.

Voullaire L et al (2000) Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 106(2):210–217PubMed

40.

Franasiak JM et al (2021) A review of the pathophysiology of recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril 116(6):1436–1448PubMed

41.

Munne S et al (2000) Outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations. Fertil Steril 73(6):1209–1218PubMed

42.

Xiang H et al (2021) Exome-sequencing identifies novel genes associated with recurrent pregnancy loss in a chinese cohort. Front Genet 12:746082PubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Rubio C et al (2017) In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 107(5):1122–1129PubMed

44.

Roque M, Simon C (2020) Time to pregnancy: as important for patients as underestimated by doctors. Fertil Steril 113(3):522–523PubMed

45.

Domar AD et al (2010) A prospective investigation into the reasons why insured United States patients drop out of in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 94(4):1457–1459PubMed

46.

Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive, M. et al (2018) The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 109(3):429–436

Titel: Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy helps to achieve a live birth with fewer transfer cycles for the blastocyst FET patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure
verfasst von: Sidong Wang
Luochuan Liu
Minyue Ma
Hui Wang
Yibing Han
Xinmeng Guo
William S. B. Yeung
Yanfei Cheng
Huiting Zhang
Fengming Dong
Bolun Zhang
Ye Tian
Jiangnan Song
Hongmei Peng
Yuanqing Yao
Publikationsdatum: 29.05.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07041-5

Update Gynäkologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy helps to achieve a live birth with fewer transfer cycles for the blastocyst FET patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure