A cumulative embryo scoring system for the prediction of pregnancy outcome following intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Singapore Medical Journal

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 221-227

  Loi, Kelly ^a   Prasath, E B ^a   Huang, Z W ^a   Loh, S F ^a   Loh, S K E ^a  

^a KK WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Cumulative embryo score; Intracytoplasmic sperm injection; Live births; Multiple births; Prediction of pregnancy outcome; Triple embryo transfers

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CUMULATIVE EMBRYO SCORING SYSTEM; EMBRYO; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INFERTILITY; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; LIVE BIRTH; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; NIDATION; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY RATE; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM;

ADULT; EMBRYO IMPLANTATION; EMBRYO, MAMMALIAN; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LIVE BIRTH; MULTIPLE BIRTH OFFSPRING; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPERM INJECTIONS, INTRACYTOPLASMIC;

EID: 42249095642     PISSN: 00375675     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Schieve LA, Reynolds MA. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Challenges in measuring and reporting success rates for assisted reproductive technology treatments: what is optimal? Hum Reprod 2004; 19:778-82.
2. Min JK, Breheny SA, MacLachlan V, Healy DL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:3-7.
3. Jain T, Missmer, SA, Hornstein MD. Trends in embryo-transfer practice and in outcomes of the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:1639-45.
4. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Wagley L, et al. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:3434-40.
5. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Blastocyst production and transfer in clinical assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 Suppl 1:S149-50.
6. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:2345- 9.
7. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M, et al. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1062-9.
8. Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 1987; 2:705-8.
9. Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG. The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 1992; 7:117-9.
10. Visser DS, Fourie FR. The applicability of the cumulative embryo score system for embryo selection and quality control in an invitro fertilization/embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 1993; 8:1719-22.
11. Roseboom TJ, Vermeiden JP, Schoute E, Lens JW, Schats R. The probability of pregnancy after embryo transfer is affected by the age of the patient, cause of infertility, number of embryos transferred and the average morphology score, as revealed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:3035-41.
12. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, et al. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1545-9.
13. Saith RR, Srinivasan A, Michie D, Sargent IL. Relationships between the developmental potential of human in-vitro fertilization embryos and features describing the embryo, oocyte and follicle. Hum Reprod Update 1998; 4:121-34.
14. Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:2190-6.
15. Fisch JD, Sher G, Adamowicz M, Keskintepe L. The graduated embryo score predicts the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies better than a single day 3 evaluation and achieves results associated with blastocyst transfer from day 3 embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:1352-8.
16. Plachot M, Belaisch-Allart J, Mayenga JM, et al. Outcome of conventional IVF and ICSI on sibling oocytes in mild male factor infertility. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:362-9.
17. Nagy ZP, Janssenswillen C, Janssens R, et al. Timing of oocyte activation, pronucleus formation and cleavage in humans after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with testicular spermatozoa and after ICSI or in-vitro fertilization on sibling oocytes with ejaculated spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:1606-12.
18. Dumoulin JC, Coonen E, Bras M, et al. Comparison of in-vitro development of embryos originating from either conventional in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:402-9.
19. Griffiths TA, Murdoch AP, Herbert M. Embryonic development in vitro is compromised by the ICSI procedure. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:1592-6.
20. Miller JE, Smith TT. The effect of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and semen parameters on blastocyst development in vitro. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:918-24.
21. Terriou P, Sapin C, Giorgetti C, et al. Embryo score is a better predictor of pregnancy than the number of transferred embryos or female age. Fertil Steril 2001; 75:525-31.
22. Shen S, Khabani A, Klein N, Battaglia D. Statistical analysis of factors affecting fertilization rates and clinical outcome associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2003; 79:355-60.
23. Payne D. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: instrumentation and injection technique. Reprod Fertil Dev 1995; 7:185-96.
24. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Performance of basal follicle-stimulating hormone in the prediction of poor ovarian response and failure to become pregnant after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2003; 79:1091-100.
25. Chuang CC, Chen CD, Chao KH, et al. Age is a better predictor of pregnancy potential than basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003; 79:63-8.
26. Watt AH, Legedza AT, Ginsburg ES, et al. The prognostic value of age and follicle-stimulating hormone levels in women over forty years of age undergoing in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000; 17:264-8.
27. Bjercke S, Fedorcsak P, Abyholm T, et al. IVF/ICSI outcome and serum LH concentration on day 1 of ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH under pituitary suppression. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:2441-7.
28. Minaretzis D, Harris D, Alper MM, et al. Multivariate analysis of factors predictive of successful live births in in vitro fertilization (IVF) suggests strategies to improve IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998; 15:365-71.
29. de Mouzon J, Rossin-Amar B, Bachelot A, Renon C, Devecchi A. [FIVNAT. Influence of attempt rank in in vitro fertilization]. Contracept Fertil Sex 1998; 26:466-72. French.
30. Van Uem JF, Acosta AA, Swanson RJ, et al. Male factor evaluation in in vitro fertilization: Norfolk experience. Fertil Steril 1985; 44:375-83.
31. American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1999 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 2002; 78:918-31.
32. Smith S, Pfeifer SM, Collins JA. Diagnosis and management of female infertility. JAMA 2003; 290:1767-70.
33. Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Ary BA, Lobo RA. Three hundred cycles of oocyte donation at the University of Southern California: assessing the effect of age and infertility diagnosis on pregnancy and implantation rates. J Assist Reprod Genet 1994; 11:92-6.
34. Montag M, van der Ven H; German Pronuclear Morphology Study Group. 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.
35. Schieve LA, Peterson HB, Meikle SF, et al. Live-birth rates and multiple-birth risk using in vitro fertilization. JAMA 1999; 282:1832-8.
36. Vahratian A, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Live-birth rates and multiple-birth risk of assisted reproductive technology pregnancies conceived using thawed embryos, USA 1999-2000. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1442-8.
37. Hu Y, Maxson WS, Hoffman DI, et al. Maximizing pregnancy rates and limiting higher-order multiple conceptions by determining the optimal number of embryos to transfer based on quality. Fertil Steril 1998; 69:650-7.
38. Miyara F, Aubriot FX, Glissant A, et al. Multiparameter analysis of human oocytes at metaphase II stage after IVF failure in non-male infertility. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1494-503.
39. Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:1003-13.
40. Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:2394-403.
41. 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; 14:1318-32.
42. Ludwig M, Schöpper B, Hasani S, Diedrich K. Clinical use of a pronuclear stage score following intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact on pregnancy rates under the conditions of the German embryo protection law. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:325-9.
43. Van Montfoort AP, Dumoulin JC, Kester AD, Evers JL. Early cleavage is a valuable addition to existing embryo selection parameters: a study using single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2103-8.
44. Sakkas D, Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Bianchi PG, Campana A. Early cleavage of human embryos to the two-cell stage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an indicator of embryo viability. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:182-7.