Using the Eeva Test™ adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 61-68

  Diamond, Michael P ^a   Suraj, Vaishali ^b   Behnke, Erica J ^c   Yang, Xinli ^d   Angle, Marlane J ^e   Lambe Steinmiller, Jaclyn C ^f   Watterson, Rachel ^g   Athayde Wirka, Kelly ^b   Chen, Alice A ^b   Shen, Shehua ^b  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b Auxogyn Inc   (United States)

^c Institute for Reproductive Medicine   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e Laurel Fertility Care   (United States)

^f Reproductive Medicine Institute   (United States)

^g Art Labs Unlimited Ltd   (United States)

Author keywords

Cell division timings; Elective single embryo transfer; Embryo selection; In vitro fertilization; Prognostic test; Time lapse imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLASTOCYST; CELL DIVISION; EARLY EMBRYO VIABILITY ASSESSMENT TEST; EMBRYO; EMBRYO CULTURE; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYOLOGY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; MORPHOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT; TIME LAPSE IMAGING; ADULT; CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; SINGLE EMBRYO TRANSFER;

ADULT; BLASTOCYST; CELL DIVISION; EMBRYO CULTURE TECHNIQUES; EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; PROGNOSIS; SINGLE EMBRYO TRANSFER; TIME-LAPSE IMAGING;

EID: 84922092353     PISSN: 10580468     EISSN: 15737330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-014-0366-1     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. 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(9):2103–8. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh385.
2. Diamond MP, Willman S, Chenette P, Cedars MI. The clinical need for a method of identification of embryos destined to become a blastocyst in assisted reproductive technology cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(5):391–6. doi:10.1007/s10815-012-9732-z.
3. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive T, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive M. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):835–42. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050.
4. Paternot G, Devroe J, Debrock S, D’Hooghe TM, Spiessens C. Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol: RB&E. 2009;7:105. doi:10.1186/1477-7827-7-105.
5. Paternot G, Debrock S, D’Hooghe T, Spiessens C. Computer-assisted embryo selection: a benefit in the evaluation of embryo quality? Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(3):347–54. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.05.007.
6. Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, Pedersen KS, Martinez M, Perez-Cano I, 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(7):569–73. doi:10.1007/s10815-011-9549-1.
7. Gleicher N, Barad DH. A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(11):1159–66. doi:10.1007/s10815-012-9871-2.
8. Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74(4):599–609. doi:10.1086/382897.
9. Horsthemke B, Ludwig M. Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(5):473–82. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmi022.
10. Manipalviratn S, DeCherney A, Segars J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):305–15. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.002.
11. Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(3):731–7. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.023.
12. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive M, the Society for Assisted Reproductive T. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertility and sterility. 2013;99(3):667–72. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.087.
13. Clua E, Tur R, Coroleu B, Boada M, Rodriguez I, Barri PN, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer in oocyte donation programmes: should it be the rule? Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(6):642–8. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.09.008.
14. Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, 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(2):412–9 e5. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.021.
15. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5(1):24. doi:10.1186/1755-8166-5-24.
16. Forman EJ, Upham KM, Cheng M, Zhao T, Hong KH, Treff NR, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening alters traditional morphology-based embryo selection: a prospective study of 100 consecutive cycles of planned fresh euploid blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):718–24. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.043.
17. Chen AA, Shen S. Predicting Embryo Developmental Potential and Viability Using Automated Time-Lapse Analysis (Eeva Test). 2013:377–89. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8376-2_22.
18. Chen AA, Tan L, Suraj V, Reijo Pera R, Shen S. Biomarkers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, validation, and practical application. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):1035–43. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.143.
19. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(10):1115–21. doi:10.1038/nbt.1686.
20. Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. 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(6):1481–9 e10. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.016.
21. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71. doi:10.1093/humrep/der256.
22. Dal Canto M, Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, De Ponti E, Novara PV, Brambillasca F, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(5):474–80. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.07.016.
23. Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, Kirk J, Herrero J, Escriba MJ, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1458–63. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1135.
24. Chavez SL, Loewke KE, Han J, Moussavi F, Colls P, Munne S, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1251. doi:10.1038/ncomms2249.
25. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CF. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(5):477–85. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.006.
26. Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):699–704. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.005.
27. Racowsky C, Stern JE, Gibbons WE, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, Biggers JD. National collection of embryo morphology data into society for assisted reproductive technology clinic outcomes reporting system: associations among day 3 cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry, and live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):1985–9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.009.
28. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. 1987.
29. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(11):1129–35.
30. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10:CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.
31. Baxter Bendus AE, Mayer JF, Shipley SK, Catherino WH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(6):1608–15. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.037.
32. Harper JC, Harton G. The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1173–7. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.064.
33. Palmer SS, Barnhart KT. Biomarkers in reproductive medicine: the promise, and can it be fulfilled? Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):954–62. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.019.
34. Harper J, Cristina Magli M, Lundin K, Barratt CLR, Brison D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? Hum Reprod. 2012;27(2):303–13. doi:10.1093/humrep/der414.
35. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27(2):140–6. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.04.013.