What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes?

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 193-200

  Basile, Natalia ^a   Caiazzo, Mauro ^a   Meseguer, Marcos ^b  

^a IVI Madrid   (Spain)

^b IVI Valencia   (Spain)

Author keywords

implantation; morphokinetics; randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

EMBRYO; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; EMBRYO MORPHOKINETICS; EMBRYO SELECTION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; IN VITRO SELECTION; KINETIC PARAMETERS; MORPHOLOGY; NIDATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; ALGORITHM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BLASTOCYST; EMBRYO CULTURE; FEMALE; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; KINETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; TRENDS;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ALGORITHMS; BIOMARKERS; BLASTOCYST; EMBRYO CULTURE TECHNIQUES; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; KINETICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY RATE;

EID: 84929464306     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: 1473656X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000166     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, et al. Noninvasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28:1115-1121.
2. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:2658-2671.
3. 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.
4. Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2015; 30:276-283.
5. Dal Canto M, Coticchio 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.
6. Montag M, Liebenthron J, Koster M. Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development Placenta 2011; 32 (Suppl 3): S252-S256.
7. Scott L, Finn A, O'Leary T, et al. Morphologic parameters of early cleavagestage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2007; 22:230-240
8. 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; 19:2103-2108.
9. 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.
10. Vernon M, Stern JE, Ball GD, et al. 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.
11. Luna M, Copperman A, Duke M, et al. Human blastocyst morphological quality is significantly improved in embryos classified as fast on day 3 (R10 cells), bringing into question current embryological dogma. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:358-363.
12. Racowsky C, Combelles CM, Nureddin A, et al. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6:323-331.
13. Kovacic B, Vlaisavljevic V, Reljic M, Cizek-Sajko M. Developmental capacity of different morphological types of day 5 human morulae and blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 8:687-694.
14. Baxter Bendus AE, Mayer JF, Shipley SK, Catherino WH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril 2006; 86:1608-1615.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:2650-2660.
19. Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, et al. Limited implantation success of directcleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98:1458-1463.
20. Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril 2014; 102:1287.e5-1294.e5.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril 2014; 101:699-704.