Top

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Published in:

01-12-2016 | Review

Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts

Authors: George Α. Sigalos, Olga Triantafyllidou, Nikos F. Vlahos

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 6/2016

Abstract

Purpose

The final success of an IVF attempt depends on several steps and decisions taken during the ovarian stimulation, the oocyte retrieval, the embryo culture and the embryo transfer. The final selection of the embryos most likely to implant is the final step in this process and the responsibility of the lab. Apart from strict morphologic criteria that historically have been used in embryo selection, additional information on genetic, metabolomic and morphokinetic characteristics of the embryo is recently combined to morphology to select the embryo most likely to produce a pregnancy. In this manuscript, we review the most recent information on the current methods used for embryo selection presenting the predictive capability of each one.

Methods

A literature search was performed on Pubmed, Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for published studies using appropriate key words and phrases with no limits placed on time.

Results

It seems that the combination of morphologic criteria in conjunction to embryo kinetics as documented by time-lapse technology provides the most reliable information on embryo quality. Blastocyst biopsy with subsequent comprehensive chromosome analysis allows the selection of the euploid embryos with the higher implantation potential.

Conclusion

Embryo time-lapse imaging and blastocyst biopsy combined to comprehensive chromosome analysis are the most promising technologies to increase pregnancy rates and reduce the possibility of multiple pregnancies. However, further studies will demonstrate the capability of routinely using these technologies to significantly improve IVF outcomes.

Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK (2001) Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril 76(5):863–870CrossRefPubMed

Revel A (2012) Defective endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 97(5):1028–1032CrossRefPubMed

Montag M, Toth B, Strowitzki T (2013) New approaches to embryo selection. Reprod Biomed Online 27(5):539–546CrossRefPubMed

Dal Canto M et al (2012) Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 25(5):474–480CrossRefPubMed

Seli E et al (2007) Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media using Raman and near-infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 88(5):1350–1357CrossRefPubMed

Scott RT Jr et al (2013) Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 100(3):697–703CrossRefPubMed

Alpha Scientists in Reproductive, M, E.S.I.G.o. Embryology (2011) The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 26(6):1270–1283CrossRef

Hamatani T et al (2006) Global gene expression profiling of preimplantation embryos. Hum Cell 19(3):98–117CrossRefPubMed

Blake DA et al (2007) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 17(4):CD002118

10.

Glujovsky D et al (2012) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD002118

11.

Glujovsky D et al (2016) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD002118

12.

Shapiro BS et al (2011) Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 96(2):344–348CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kallen B et al (2010) Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril 94(5):1680–1683CrossRefPubMed

14.

Maheshwari A et al (2013) Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 100(6):1615–1621 (e1–10) CrossRefPubMed

15.

Batcheller A et al (2011) Are there subtle genome-wide epigenetic alterations in normal offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies? Fertil Steril 96(6):1306–1311CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lane M, Gardner DK (2003) Ammonium induces aberrant blastocyst differentiation, metabolism, pH regulation, gene expression and subsequently alters fetal development in the mouse. Biol Reprod 69(4):1109–1117CrossRefPubMed

17.

Young LE et al (2001) Epigenetic change in IGF2R is associated with fetal overgrowth after sheep embryo culture. Nat Genet 27(2):153–154CrossRefPubMed

18.

Gizewska M et al (2014) The significance of molecular studies in the long-term follow-up of children with beckwith-wiedemann syndrome. Turk J Pediatr 56(2):177–182PubMed

19.

DeBaun MR, Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP (2003) Association of in vitro fertilization with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and epigenetic alterations of LIT1 and H19. Am J Hum Genet 72(1):156–160CrossRefPubMed

20.

Lim D et al (2009) Clinical and molecular genetic features of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome associated with assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 24(3):741–747CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chang AS et al (2005) Association between Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproductive technology: a case series of 19 patients. Fertil Steril 83(2):349–354CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Racowsky C et al (2000) The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 73(3):558–564CrossRefPubMed

23.

Thomas MR et al (2010) Clinical predictors of human blastocyst formation and pregnancy after extended embryo culture and transfer. Fertil Steril 94(2):543–548CrossRefPubMed

24.

Meseguer M et al (2011) The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 26(10):2658–2671CrossRefPubMed

25.

Wong CC et al (2010) Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 28(10):1115–1121CrossRefPubMed

26.

Hashimoto S et al (2012) Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril 97(2):332–337CrossRefPubMed

27.

Chavez SL et al (2012) Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun 3:1251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Campbell A et al (2013) Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online 27(2):140–146CrossRefPubMed

29.

Basile N et al (2014) Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril 101(3):699–704CrossRefPubMed

30.

Ottolini C, Rienzi L, Capalbo A (2014) A cautionary note against embryo aneuploidy risk assessment using time-lapse imaging. Reprod Biomed Online 28(3):273–275CrossRefPubMed

31.

Armstrong S et al (2015) Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD011320

32.

Polanski LT et al (2014) Time-lapse embryo imaging for improving reproductive outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44(4):394–401CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kaser DJ, Racowsky C (2014) Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 20(5):617–631CrossRefPubMed

34.

Goodman LR et al (2016) Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 105(2):275–285 (e10) CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ciray HN et al (2012) Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media–a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet 29(9):891–900CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Gardner DK et al (2011) Glucose consumption of single post-compaction human embryos is predictive of embryo sex and live birth outcome. Hum Reprod 26(8):1981–1986CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hardy K et al (1989) Non-invasive measurement of glucose and pyruvate uptake by individual human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 4(2):188–191PubMed

38.

Brison DR et al (2004) Identification of viable embryos in IVF by non-invasive measurement of amino acid turnover. Hum Reprod 19(10):2319–2324CrossRefPubMed

39.

Bellver J et al (2015) Day-3 embryo metabolomics in the spent culture media is altered in obese women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 103(6):1407–1415 (e1) CrossRefPubMed

40.

Tejera A et al (2012) Time-dependent O2 consumption patterns determined optimal time ranges for selecting viable human embryos. Fertil Steril 98(4):849–857 (e1–3) CrossRefPubMed

41.

Tejera A et al (2016) Combination of metabolism measurement and a time-lapse system provides an embryo selection method based on oxygen uptake and chronology of cytokinesis timing. Fertil Steril 106(1):119–126 (e2) CrossRefPubMed

42.

Vergouw CG et al (2014) No evidence that embryo selection by near-infrared spectroscopy in addition to morphology is able to improve live birth rates: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 29(3):455–461CrossRefPubMed

43.

Uyar A, Torrealday S, Seli E (2013) Cumulus and granulosa cell markers of oocyte and embryo quality. Fertil Steril 99(4):979–997CrossRefPubMed

44.

Feuerstein P et al (2007) Gene expression in human cumulus cells: one approach to oocyte competence. Hum Reprod 22(12):3069–3077CrossRefPubMed

45.

Gebhardt KM et al (2011) Human cumulus cell gene expression as a biomarker of pregnancy outcome after single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 96(1):47–52 (e2) CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ekart J et al (2013) Ranking and selection of MII oocytes in human ICSI cycles using gene expression levels from associated cumulus cells. Hum Reprod 28(11):2930–2942CrossRefPubMed

47.

Iager AE et al (2013) Identification of a novel gene set in human cumulus cells predictive of an oocyte’s pregnancy potential. Fertil Steril 99(3):745–752 (e6) CrossRefPubMed

48.

Assou S et al (2008) A non-invasive test for assessing embryo potential by gene expression profiles of human cumulus cells: a proof of concept study. Mol Hum Reprod 14(12):711–719CrossRefPubMed

49.

Haouzi D et al (2012) Altered gene expression profile in cumulus cells of mature MII oocytes from patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 27(12):3523–3530CrossRefPubMed

50.

McReynolds S et al (2012) Impact of maternal aging on the molecular signature of human cumulus cells. Fertil Steril 98(6):1574–1580 (e5) CrossRefPubMed

51.

Borgbo T et al (2013) Comparison of gene expression profiles in granulosa and cumulus cells after ovulation induction with either human chorionic gonadotropin or a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger. Fertil Steril 100(4):994–1001CrossRefPubMed

52.

Capalbo A et al (2014) Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 29(6):1173–1181CrossRefPubMed

53.

Fragouli E et al (2014) Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 20(2):117–126CrossRefPubMed

54.

Scott KL, Hong KH, Scott RT Jr (2013) Selecting the optimal time to perform biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril 100(3):608–614CrossRefPubMed

55.

Salvaggio CN et al (2014) Polar body based aneuploidy screening is poorly predictive of embryo ploidy and reproductive potential. J Assist Reprod Genet 31(9):1221–1226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Keltz MD et al (2013) Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet 30(10):1333–1339CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ (2012) Human embryonic development after blastomere removal: a time-lapse analysis. Hum Reprod 27(1):97–105CrossRefPubMed

58.

Scott RT Jr et al (2013) Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 100(3):624–630CrossRefPubMed

59.

Schoolcraft WB et al (2010) Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 94(5):1700–1706CrossRefPubMed

60.

Scott RT Jr et al (2012) Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril 97(4):870–875CrossRefPubMed

61.

Forman EJ et al (2013) In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 100(1):100–107 (e1) CrossRefPubMed

62.

Twisk M et al (2008) No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 23(12):2813–2817CrossRefPubMed

63.

Mastenbroek S et al (2011) Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 17(4):454–466CrossRefPubMed

64.

Staessen C et al (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 23(12):2818–2825CrossRefPubMed

65.

Lathi RB, Westphal LM, Milki AA (2008) Aneuploidy in the miscarriages of infertile women and the potential benefit of preimplanation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 89(2):353–357CrossRefPubMed

66.

Jobanputra V et al (2002) Multiplex interphase FISH as a screen for common aneuploidies in spontaneous abortions. Hum Reprod 17(5):1166–1170CrossRefPubMed

67.

Mastenbroek S et al (2007) In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 357(1):9–17CrossRefPubMed

68.

Handyside AH (2013) 24-chromosome copy number analysis: a comparison of available technologies. Fertil Steril 100(3):595–602CrossRefPubMed

69.

Fragouli E et al (2011) Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod 26(2):480–490CrossRefPubMed

70.

Harper JC, Harton G (2010) The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril 94(4):1173–1177CrossRefPubMed

71.

Tobler KJ et al (2014) Two different microarray technologies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening, due to reciprocal translocation imbalances, demonstrate equivalent euploidy and clinical pregnancy rates. J Assist Reprod Genet 31(7):843–850CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

72.

Fiorentino F et al (2014) Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril 101(5):1375–1382CrossRefPubMed

73.

Fiorentino F et al (2014) Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod 29(12):2802–2813CrossRefPubMed

74.

Barbash-Hazan S et al (2009) Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril 92(3):890–896CrossRefPubMed

75.

Gueye NA et al (2014) Uniparental disomy in the human blastocyst is exceedingly rare. Fertil Steril 101(1):232–236CrossRefPubMed

76.

Northrop LE et al (2010) SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod 16(8):590–600CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH (2014) Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12:22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

78.

Mastenbroek S (2013) One swallow does not make a summer. Fertil Steril 99(5):1205–1206CrossRefPubMed

79.

Lee E et al (2015) The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 30(2):473–483CrossRefPubMed

80.

Chen M et al (2015) Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(10):e0140779CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA (2015) Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online 30(3):281–289CrossRefPubMed

Title: Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts
Authors: George Α. Sigalos
Olga Triantafyllidou
Nikos F. Vlahos
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4196-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Using the angiogenic factors sFlt-1 and PlGF with Doppler ultrasound of the uterine artery for confirming preeclampsia

Expectant management versus multifetal pregnancy reduction in higher order multiple pregnancies containing a monochorionic pair and a review of the literature

Recurrent shoulder dystocia: is it predictable?

WTIP interacts with BRCA2 and is essential for BRCA2 centrosome localization in cervical cancer cell

Prevalence of Lynch syndrome in unselected patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer

Delivering elsewhere between the first and second deliveries is a risk marker for obstetric complications in the second delivery