Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos

Human Reproduction

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 28-36

  Rhenman, A ^a   Berglund, L ^b   Brodin, T ^c   Olovsson, M ^a   Milton, K ^c   Hadziosmanovic, N ^b   Holte, J ^a,c,d  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTER   (Sweden)

^c Carl von Linne Kliniken   (Sweden)

^d Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences   (Sweden)

Author keywords

embryo morphology; embryo score; embryo transfer; implantation potential; prediction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLASTOMA; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBRYO; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; LIVE BIRTH; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; CYTOLOGY; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BLASTOMERES; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; LIVE BIRTH; LOGISTIC MODELS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84922467136     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu295     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. AhlstromA, Westin C, Reismer E, WiklandM, HardarsonT. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3289-3296.
2. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 1270-1283.
3. Antczak M, Van Blerkom J. Temporal and spatial aspects of fragmentation in early human embryos: possible effects on developmental competence and association with the differential elimination of regulatory proteins from polarized domains. Hum Reprod 1999;14:429-447.
4. Aparicio B, Cruz M, Meseguer M. Is morphokinetic analysis the answer? Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:654-663.
5. Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B. Randomized comparison of two different blastocyst grading systems. Fertil Steril 2006;85:559-563.
6. Brodin T, Hadziosmanovic N, Berglund L, Olovsson M, Holte J. Antimullerian hormone levels are strongly associated with live-birth rates after assisted reproduction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:1107-1114.
7. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685-718.
8. Claman P, Armant DR, Seibel MM, Wang TA, Oskowitz SP, Taymor ML. The impact of embryo quality and quantity on implantation and the establishment of viable pregnancies. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1987; 4:218-222.
9. Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, Baker VL, Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Gvakharia M 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;100:412-419 e415.
10. Cook NR. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007;115:928-935.
11. Cummins JM, Breen TM, Harrison KL, Shaw JM, Wilson LM, Hennessey JF. A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1986;3:284-295.
12. Dar S, Librach CL, Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Cowan L, IVF Directors Group of Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus Day 3 embryo transfer: Canadian ART Register (CARTR) analysis. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:924-928.
13. Fauque P, Audureau E, Leandri R, Delaroche L, Assouline S, Epelboin S, Jouannet P, Patrat C. Is the nuclear status of an embryo an independent factor to predict its ability to develop to term? Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1299-1304 e1293.
14. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1155-1158.
15. Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2004; 81:551-555.
16. Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J, Roulier R. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2427-2431.
17. Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Royere D. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod 2007;22:1973-1981.
18. HardarsonT, Hanson C, Sjogren A, Lundin K.Humanembryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:313-318.
19. Harrell FE, Jr., Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996;15:361-387.
20. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, Griffin DK, Wells D, PGD Practitioners Group. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril 2013;100:1695-1703.
21. Herrero J, Tejera A, Albert C, Vidal C, de Los Santos MJ, Meseguer M.Atime to look back: analysis of morphokinetic characteristics of human embryo development. Fertil Steril 2013;100:1602-1609 e1604.
22. Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, Garello C, Gennarelli G, Revelli A, Bergh T. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 2007;22:548-557.
23. Holte J, Berglund L, Hadziosmanovic N, Tilly J, Pettersson H, Bergh T. The construction and validation of a prediction model to minimize twin rates at preserved live birth rates in ART. Paper presented at 27th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction & Embryology (ESHRE), July 2011a; Stockholm, Sweden.
24. Holte J, Brodin T, Berglund L, Hadziosmanovic N, Olovsson M, Bergh T. Antral follicle counts are strongly associated with live-birth rates after assisted reproduction, with superior treatment outcome in women with polycystic ovaries. Fertil Steril 2011b;96:594-599.
25. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. New York; Chichester: Wiley, 2000.
26. Huber M, Hadziosmanovic N, Berglund L, Holte J. Using the ovarian sensitivity index to define poor, normal, and high response after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the long gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist protocol: suggestions for a new principle to solve an old problem. Fertil Steril 2013;100:1270-1276.
27. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril 2010;94:1680-1683.
28. Kalra SK, Ratcliffe SJ, BarnhartKT, Coutifaris C. Extended embryo culture and an increased risk of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:69-75.
29. Leushuis E, van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Bossuyt PM, Eijkemans MJ, van der Veen F, Mol BW, Hompes PG. Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:537-552.
30. Machtinger R, Racowsky C. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;26:210-221.
31. Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001;183(Suppl 1):S29-S34.
32. Montag M, Toth B, Strowitzki T. New approaches to embryo selection. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:539-546.
33. Moons KG, Donders AR, Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE. Penalized maximum likelihood estimation to directly adjust diagnostic and prognostic prediction models for overoptimism: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:1262-1270.
34. Racowsky C, Ohno-Machado L, Kim J, Biggers JD. Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day? Hum Reprod 2009; 24:2104-2113.
35. Rehman KS, Bukulmez O, Langley M, Carr BR, Nackley AC, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Late stages of embryo progression are a much better predictor of clinical pregnancy than early cleavage in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cycles with blastocyst-stage transfer. Fertil Steril 2007;87:1041-1052.
36. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, Romano S, Minasi MG, Ferrero S, Sapienza F, Baroni E, Greco E. Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:669-681.
37. Scott L. The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:237-249.
38. Sjoblom P, Menezes J, Cummins L, Mathiyalagan B, CostelloMF. Prediction of embryo developmental potential and pregnancy based on early stage morphological characteristics. Fertil Steril 2006;86:848-861.
39. Staessen C, Camus M, Bollen N, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. The relationship between embryo quality and the occurrence of multiple pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1992;57:626-630.
40. Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J. Ultrastructural and autoradiographic observations on multinucleated blastomeres of human cleaving embryos obtained by in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1987; 2:127-136.
41. Te Velde ER, Nieboer D, Lintsen AM, Braat DD, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD, Vergouwe Y. Comparison of two models predicting IVF success; the effect of time trends on model performance. Hum Reprod 2014;29:57-64.
42. van Loendersloot L, vanWely M, Goddijn M, Repping S, Bossuyt P, van der Veen F. Pregnancy and twinning rates using a tailored embryo transfer policy. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;26:462-469.
43. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meerssche M, Ryckaert G, Eestermans W, Gerris J. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2345-2349.
44. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Laureys I, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. Calculating the implantation potential of day 3 embryos in women younger than 38 years of age: a new model. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:326-332.
45. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1062-1069.
46. Vernon M, Stern JE, Ball GD, Wininger D, Mayer J, Racowsky C. Utility of the national embryo morphology data collection by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART): correlation between day-3 morphology grade and live-birth outcome. Fertil Steril 2011;95:2761-2763.
47. Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988;44:1049-1060.
48. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1545-1549.