Time-lapse embryo imaging technology: Does it improve the clinical results?

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 138-144

  Findikli, Necati ^a   Oral, Engin ^a  

^a ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

clinical outcome; embryo morphokinetics; human embryo culture and scoring; time lapse

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY; EMBRYO CULTURE; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EMBRYO; MEDICAL DEVICE; MORPHOLOGY; NIDATION; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; TIME LAPSE IMAGING; BLASTOCYST; CYTOLOGY; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; MALE; OOCYTE CLEAVAGE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; ZYGOTE;

BLASTOCYST; CLEAVAGE STAGE, OVUM; EMBRYO CULTURE TECHNIQUES; EMBRYO IMPLANTATION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; MALE; PREGNANCY; TIME-LAPSE IMAGING; ZYGOTE;

EID: 84900411446     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: 1473656X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000072     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Kupka M, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:2318-2331.
2. Braude P. Selecting the 'best' embryos: prospects for improvement. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27:644-653.
3. Bhattacharya S, Kamath MS. Reducing multiple births in assisted reproduction technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28:191-199.
4. Scott L. The biological basis of noninvasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9:237-249.
5. ALPHA Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 22:632-646.
6. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 7:CD002118.
7. Herrero J, Meseguer M. Selection of high potential embryos using time-lapse imaging: the era of morphokinetics. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1030-1034.
8. Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:1277-1285.
9. Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011; 28:569-573.
10. Edwards RG, Fishel SB, Cohen J, et al. Factors influencing the success of in vitro fertilization for alleviating human infertility. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1984; 1:3-23.
11. Lundin K, Bergh C, Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2652-2657.
12. Hesters L, Prisant N, Fanchin R, et al. Impact of early cleaved zygote morphology on embryo development and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:1677-1684.
13. Scott L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6:201-214.
14. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, et al. Day 3 embryo transfer with combined evaluation at the pronuclear and cleavage stages compares favourably with day 5 blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:1852-1855.
15. Machtinger R, Racowsky C. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26:210-221.
16. Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Blastocyst versus day 2 or 3 transfer. Semin Reprod Med 2001; 19:259-268.
17. Gardner DK. Blastocyst culture: toward single embryo transfers. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2000; 3:229-237.
18. Aparicio B, Cruz M, Meseguer M. Is morphokinetic analysis the answer? Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27:654-663.
19. Pribenszky C, Losonczi E, Molnar M, et al. Prediction of in-vitro developmental competence of early cleavage-stage mouse embryos with compact timelapse equipment. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 20:371-379.
20. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28:1115-1121.
21. Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, et al. Timing of cell division in human cleavagestage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25:371-381.
22. Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, et al. 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; 98:1481-9e10.
23. Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using timelapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:532-541.
24. Mio Y, Maeda K. Time-lapse cinematography of dynamic changes occurring during in vitro development of human embryos. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:660e1-6605e.
25. Nagy ZP, Liu J, Joris H, et al. Time-course of oocyte activation, pronucleus formation and cleavage in human oocytes fertilized by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1994; 9:1743-1748.
26. Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Alexander S. A microscopic and biochemical study of fragmentation phenotypes in stage-appropriate human embryos. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:719-729.
27. Hardarson T, Lofman C, Coull G, et al. Internalization of cellular fragments in a human embryo: time-lapse recordings. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5:36-38.
28. Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17:385-391.
29. Cole RJ. Cinemicrographic observations on the trophoblast and zona pellucida of the mouse blastocyst. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1967; 17:481-490.
30. Massip A, Mulnard J. Time-lapse cinematographic analysis of hatching of normal and frozen-thawed cow blastocysts. J Reprod Fertil 1980; 58:475-478.
31. Grisart B, Massip A, Dessy F. Cinematographic analysis of bovine embryo development in serum-free oviduct-conditioned medium. J Reprod Fertil 1994; 101:257-264.
32. Gonzales DS, Pinheiro JC, Bavister BD. Prediction of the developmental potential of hamster embryos in vitro by precise timing of the third cell cycle. J Reprod Fertil 1995; 105:1-8.
33. Holm P, Booth PJ, Callesen H. Kinetics of early in vitro development of bovine in vivo- and in vitro-derived zygotes produced and/or cultured in chemically defined or serum-containing media. Reproduction 2002; 123:553-565.
34. Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen AL. The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:2649-2657.
35. Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, Kirk J, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98:1458-1463.
36. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:2658-2671.
37. Sundvall L, Ingerslev HJ, Breth Knudsen U, Kirkegaard K. Inter- and intraobserver variability of time-lapse annotations. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:3215-3221.
38. Mio Y, Iwata K, Yumoto K, et al. Possible mechanism of polyspermy block in human oocytes observed by time-lapse cinematography. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29:951-956.
39. Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, 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; 100:412-9e5.
40. Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, et al. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:332-337.
41. Dal Canto M, Coticchhio G, Mignini Renzini M, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25:474-480.
42. Ciray HN, Aksoy T, Goktas C, et al. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media - a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29:891-900.
43. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Hatching of in vitro fertilized human embryos is influenced by fertilization method. Fertil Steril 2013; 100:1277-1282.
44. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:738-744; e4.
45. Basile N, Morbeck D, Garcia-Velasco J, et al. Type of culture media does not affect embryo kinetics: a time-lapse analysis of sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:634-641.
46. Munoz M, Cruz M, Humaidan P, et al. Dose of recombinant FSH and oestradiol concentration on day of HCG affect embryo development kinetics. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25:382-389.
47. Munoz M, Cruz M, Humaidan P, et al. The type of GnRH analogue used during controlled ovarian stimulation influences early embryo developmental kinetics: a time-lapse study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 168:167-172.
48. Bellver J, Mifsud A, Grau N, et al. Similar morphokinetic patterns in embryos derived from obese and normoweight infertile women: a time-lapse study. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:794-800.
49. Freour T, Dessolle L, Lammers J, et al. Comparison of embryo morphokinetics after in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection in smoking and nonsmoking women. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1944-1950.
50. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, et al. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using noninvasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26:477-485.
51. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 2014; 20:117-126.
52. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, et al. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27:140-146.
53. Meseguer M, Kruhne U, Laursen S. Full in vitro fertilization laboratory mechanization: toward robotic assisted reproduction? Fertil Steril 2012; 97:1277-1286.
54. Wong C, Chen AA, Behr B, Shen S. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26:120-129.
55. Montag M. Morphokinetics and embryo aneuploidy: has time come or not yet? Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26:528-530.
56. Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 74:599-609.
57. Shufaro Y, Laufer N. Epigenetic concerns in assisted reproduction: update and critical review of the current literature. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:605-606.
58. Ottosen LD, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev J. Light exposure of the ovum and preimplantation embryo during ART procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24:99-103.
59. Nakahara T, Iwase A, Goto M, et al. Evaluation of the safety of time-lapse observations for human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010; 27:93-96.
60. Oh SJ, Gong SP, Lee ST, et al. Light intensity and wavelength during embryo manipulation are important factors for maintaining viability of preimplantation embryos in vitro. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (4 Suppl):1150-1157.
61. Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988; 332:459-461.