nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

01.10.2013 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

The combination of pronuclear and blastocyst morphology: a strong prognostic tool for implantation potential

verfasst von: Daniela Paes Almeida Ferreira Braga, Amanda S. Setti, Rita de Cássia S. Figueira, Assumpto Iaconelli Jr, Edson Borges Jr

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 10/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To (i) investigate a possible association between different features of pronuclear (PN) morphology and different features of blastocyst morphology, (ii) evaluate the combination of PN and blastocyst morphologies as a predictive factor for ICSI outcomes and (iii) identify possible contributing factors to poor PN morphology.

Methods

This study included 908 normally fertilised zygotes reaching full blastocyst stage, obtained from 350 patients undergoing ICSI cycles, in which the implantations rates were 0 % or 100 %. The influence of PN morphology on blastocyst morphology and on the rates of pregnancy and miscarriage was investigated. Embryos were graded and split into three groups, taking into consideration both the PN and the blastocyst status. The pregnancy rate was compared among these groups.

Results

Inner cell mass (ICM) alterations were correlated with the number of nucleolar precursor bodies (NPB), while trophectoderm alterations were correlated with the size of the pronuclei and the distribution of the NPB. The distribution of the NPB had an impact on the chances of pregnancy. A significant difference was observed among the groups regarding the pregnancy rate. The maternal age, number of aspirated follicles and number of retrieved oocytes influenced the incidence of PN defects.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that a lower oocyte yield may lead to higher-quality PN zygotes. In addition, different PN features may influence further embryo development, especially the quality of the blastocyst. Moreover, the association between PN and blastocyst morphology may be used as a prognostic tool for implantation.

Adashi EY, Barri PN, Berkowitz R, Braude P, Bryan E, Carr J, et al. Infertility therapy-associated multiple pregnancies (births): an ongoing epidemic. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:515–42.PubMedCrossRef

Senn A, Urner F, Chanson A, Primi MP, Wirthner D, Germond M. Morphological scoring of human pronuclear zygotes for prediction of pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:234–9.PubMedCrossRef

Wilding M, Di Matteo L, D’Andretti S, Montanaro N, Capobianco C, Dale B. An oocyte score for use in assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:350–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Feichtinger O, Tews G. Prognostic value of first polar body morphology on fertilization rate and embryo quality in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:427–30.PubMedCrossRef

Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G. Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:251–62.PubMedCrossRef

Borges EJ, Rossi LM, Farah L, Guilherme P, Rocha CC, Ortiz V, et al. The impact of pronuclear orientation to select chromosomally normal embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22:107–14.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Campana A, Sakkas D. Blastocyst development from supernumerary embryos after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a paternal influence? Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1632–7.PubMedCrossRef

Seli E, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Moffatt O, Sakkas D. Extent of nuclear DNA damage in ejaculated spermatozoa impacts on blastocyst development after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:378–83.PubMedCrossRef

Kattera S, Chen C. Developmental potential of human pronuclear zygotes in relation to their pronuclear orientation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:294–9.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Garello C, Baker H, Rai J, Montgomery S, Wilson P, Kennedy CR, et al. Pronuclear orientation, polar body placement, and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in-vitro fertilization: further evidence for polarity in human oocytes? Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2588–95.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Fortini D, Grieco N. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:341–9.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Scott Jr RT, Hofmann GE. Prognostic assessment of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1–11.PubMed

13.

Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1318–23.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Tesarik J, Junca AM, Hazout A, Aubriot FX, Nathan C, Cohen-Bacrie P, et al. Embryos with high implantation potential after intracytoplasmic sperm injection can be recognized by a simple, non-invasive examination of pronuclear morphology. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1396–9.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J, Rongieres C, Nisand I, Gerlinger P. Zygote evaluation: an efficient tool for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2591–7.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Balaban B, Urman B, Isiklar A, Alatas C, Mercan R, Aksoy S, et al. Blastocyst transfer following intracytoplasmic injection of ejaculated, epididymal or testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:125–9.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Ludwig M, Schopper B, Katalinic A, Sturm R, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K. Experience with the elective transfer of two embryos under the conditions of the german embryo protection law: results of a retrospective data analysis of 2573 transfer cycles. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:319–24.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Salumets A, Suikkari AM, Mols T, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Tuuri T. Influence of oocytes and spermatozoa on early embryonic development. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:1082–7.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Henkel R, Hajimohammad M, Stalf T, Hoogendijk C, Mehnert C, Menkveld R, et al. Influence of deoxyribonucleic acid damage on fertilization and pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:965–72.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Zollner U, Zollner KP, Hartl G, Dietl J, Steck T. The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1327–33.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Gaiswinkler U, Wiesinger R, Puchner M, et al. Presence, but not type or degree of extension, of a cytoplasmic halo has a significant influence on preimplantation development and implantation behaviour. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2406–12.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Graham J, Han T, Porter R, Levy M, Stillman R, Tucker MJ. Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:495–7.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Rijnders PM, Jansen CA. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2869–73.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Himmel W, Ittner E, Kochen MM, Michelmann HW, Hinney B, Reuter M, et al. Management of involuntary childlessness. Br J Gen Pract. 1997;47:111–8.PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

ESHRE. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.CrossRef

26.

Palermo GD, Colombero LT, Rosenwaks Z. The human sperm centrosome is responsible for normal syngamy and early embryonic development. Rev Reprod. 1997;2:19–27.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen AL. The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:2649–57.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Montag M, van der Ven H. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2384–9.PubMed

29.

Balaban B, Urman B, Isiklar A, Alatas C, Aksoy S, Mercan R, et al. The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2357–61.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Neuber E, Rinaudo P, Trimarchi JR, Sakkas D. Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1307–12.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Nicoli A, Valli B, Di Girolamo R, Di Tommaso B, Gallinelli A, La Sala GB. Limited importance of pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) in assisted reproduction outcome in the absence of embryo cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1167–73.PubMedCrossRef

32.

James AN, Hennessy S, Reggio B, Wiemer K, Larsen F, Cohen J. The limited importance of pronuclear scoring of human zygotes. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1599–604.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Nicoli A, Capodanno F, Moscato L, Rondini I, Villani MT, Tuzio A, et al. Analysis of pronuclear zygote configurations in 459 clinical pregnancies obtained with assisted reproductive technique procedures. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010;8:77.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

34.

Brezinova J, Oborna I, Svobodova M, Fingerova H. Evaluation of day one embryo quality and IVF outcome–a comparison of two scoring systems. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7:9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

35.

Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1970–5.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Fragouli E, Katz-Jaffe M, Alfarawati S, Stevens J, Colls P, Goodall NN, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2011;94:875–87.CrossRef

37.

Baart EB, Macklon NS, Fauser BJ. Ovarian stimulation and embryo quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18 Suppl 2:45–50.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Hohmann FP, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88:166–73.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The combination of pronuclear and blastocyst morphology: a strong prognostic tool for implantation potential
verfasst von: Daniela Paes Almeida Ferreira Braga
Amanda S. Setti
Rita de Cássia S. Figueira
Assumpto Iaconelli Jr
Edson Borges Jr
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 10/2013
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0073-3

Update Gynäkologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

The combination of pronuclear and blastocyst morphology: a strong prognostic tool for implantation potential