Development rate, cumulative scoring, and embryonic viability

Human Preimplantation Embryo Selection

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 101-121

  Skiadas, Christine C ^a   Racowsky, Catherine ^b  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85128439861     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (84)

1. Christine C Skiadas and Catherine Racowsky Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P et al. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 1987; 2: 705-8.
2. Cummins J, Breen T, Harrison K. 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: 284-95.
3. Tsai Y, Chung M, Sung Y et al. Clinical value of early cleavage embryo. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 76: 293-7.
4. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S et al. Embryo morphology of cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1545-9.
5. Templeton A, Morris J. Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 573-7.
6. Gardner D, Lane M, Stevens J et al. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1155-8.
7. Milki A, Fisch J, Behr B. Two-blastocyst transfer has similar pregnancy rates and a decreased multiple gestation rate compared with three-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 1999; 72: 225-8.
8. Racowsky C, Jackson K, Cekleniak N et al. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 558-64.
9. Kolibianakis E, Zikopoulos K, Verpoest W et al. Should we advise patients undergoing IVF to start a cycle leading to a day 3 or a day 5 transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2550-4.
10. Papanikolaou E, D'haeseleer E, Verheyen G et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3198-203.
11. Moore KL, Persaud TVN. The Developing Human: Clinically oriented embrydogy, 6th edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998: 44.
12. Ludwig M, Schopper B, Al-Hasani S et al. Clinical use of a pronuclear stage score following intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact of pregnancy rates under the conditions of the German embryo protection law. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 325-9.
13. Zollner U, Zollner K-P, Hartl G et al. The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1327-33.
14. Scott L, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1003-13.
15. Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pro-nuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1318-23.
16. Wright G, Wiker S, Elsner C et al. Observations on the morphology of pronuclei and nucleoli in human zygotes and implications for cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 109-15.
17. Payne D, Flaherty S, Barry M et al. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 532-41.
18. Balakier H, MacLusky N, Casper R. Characterization of the first cell cycle in human zygotes: implications for cryopreservation. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 359-65.
19. Capmany G, Taylor A, Braude P et al. The timing of pronuclear formation, DNA synthesis and cleavage in the human 1-cell embryo. Mol Hum Reprod 1996; 2: 299-306.
20. Trounson A, Mohr L, Wood C et al. Effect of delayed insemination on in-vitro fertilization, culture and transfer of human embryos. J Reprod Fertil 1982; 64: 285-94.
21. Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four and eight cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988; 332: 459-61.
22. Nikas G, Ao A, Winston R et al. Compaction and surface polarity in the human embryo in-vitro. Biol Reprod 1996; 55: 32-7.
23. Jones G, Trounson A, Lolatgis N et al. Factors affecting the success of human blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 1022-9.
24. Payne J, Raburn D, Couchman G et al. Relationship between preembryo pronuclear morpholoy (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 900-9.
25. Edwards R, Fishel S, Cohen J. Factors influencing the success of in vitro fertilization for alleviating human infertility. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1984; 1: 3-23.
26. Shoukir Y, Campana A, Farley T et al. Early cleavage of in-vitro fertilized embryos to the 2-cell stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality and viability. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1531-6.
27. Sakkas D, Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D et al. 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.
28. Sakkas D, Percival G, D'Arcy Y et al. Assessment of early cleaving in vitro fertilized human embryos at the 2-cell stage before transfer improves embryo selection. Fertil Steril 2001; 76: 1150-6.
29. Ciray H, Karagenc L, Ulug U et al. Early cleavage morphology affects the quality and implantation potential of day 3 embryos. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 358-65.
30. Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M et al. Embryo fragmentation in vitro and its impact on treatment and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2001; 76: 281-5.
31. Steer C, Mills C, Tan S et al. 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 program. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 117-9.
32. Roseboom T, Vermeiden J, Schoute E et al. 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.
33. Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 2427-31.
34. Kligman I, Benadiva C, Alikani M et al. The presence of multinucleated blastomeres in human embryos is correlated with chromosomal abnormalities. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 1492-8.
35. Jackson K, Ginsburg E, Hornstein M et al. Multinucleation in normally fertilized embryos is associated with an accelerated ovulation induction response and lower implantation and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization-transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 60-6.
36. Saldeen P, Sundstrom P. Nuclear status of four-cell preembryos predicts implantation potential in in vitro fertilization treatment cycles. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 584-9.
37. Carillo A, Lane B, Pridham D et al. Improved clinical outcomes for in vitro fertilization with delay of embryo transfer from 48 to 72 hours after oocyte retrieval: use of glucose- and phosphate-free media. Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 329-34.
38. Volpes A, Sammartano F, Coffaro F et al. Number of good quality embryos on day 3 is predictive for both pregnancy and implantation rates in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 1330-6.
39. Racowsky C, Combelles C, Nureddin A et al. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6: 323-31.
40. Desai N, Goldstein J, Rowland D et al. 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.
41. Skiadas C, Jackson K, Racowsky C. Early compaction on day 3 may be associated with increased implantation potential. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 1386-91.
42. Alikani M, Calderon G, Tomkin G et al. Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2634-43.
43. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjogren A et al. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 313-18.
44. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M et al. Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10: 669-81.
45. Tao J, Tamis R, Fink K et al. The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1513-18.
46. 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.
47. Graham J, Han T, Porter R et al. Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 495-7.
48. Milki A, Hinckley M, Gebhardt J et al. Accuracy of day 3 criteria for selecting best embryos. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 1191-5.
49. Gianaroli L, Magli M, Ferraretti A et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis increases the implantation rate in human in vitro fertilization by avoiding the transfer of chromosomally abnormal embryos. Fertil Steril 1997; 68: 1128-31.
50. Munne S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 12: 234-53.
51. Janny L, Menezo Y. Evidence for a strong paternal effect on human preimplantation embryo development and blastocyst formation. Mol Reprod Dev 1994; 38: 36-42.
52. Schoolcraft W, Gardner D, Lane M et al. Blastocyst culture and transfer: analysis of results and parameters affecting outcome in two in-vitro fertilization programs. Fertil Steril 1999; 72: 604-9.
53. Langley M, Marek D, Gardner D et al. Extended embryo culture in human assisted reproduction treatments. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 902-8.
54. Dokras A, Sargent I, Barlow D. Human blastocyst grading: an indicator of developmental potential? Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 2119-27.
55. Hardarson T, Caisander G, Sjogren A et al. A morphological and chromosomal study of blastocysts developing from morphologically suboptimal human pre-embryos compared with control blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 399-407.
56. Richter K, Harris D, Daneshmand S et al. Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape. Fertil Steril 2001;76: 1157-67.
57. Fisch J, Rodriguez H, Ross R et al. The graduated embryo score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 1970-5.
58. De Placido G, Wilding M, Strina I et al. High outcome predictability after IVF using a combined score for zygote and embryo morphology and growth rate. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2402-9.
59. Lan K, Huang F-J, Lin Y-C et al. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1299-306.
60. Ciray H, Karagenc L, Ulug U et al. Use of both early cleavage and day 2 mononucleation to predict embryos with high implantation potential in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 1411-16.
61. Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M et al. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and preimplantation. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2394-403.
62. Fisch J, Sher G, Adamowicz M et al. 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.
63. Nagy Z, Dozortsev D, Diamond M et al. Pronuclear morphology evaluation with subsequent evaluation of embryo morphology significantly increases implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2004; 80: 67-74.
64. Chen C, Kattera S. Comparison of pronuclear zygote morphology and early cleavage status of zygotes as additional criteria in the selection of day 3 embryos: a randomized study. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 347-52.
65. Craft I, McLeod F, Green S et al. Human pregnancy following oocyte and sperm transfer to the uterus. Lancet 1982; 1: 1031-3.
66. Dawson K, Conaghan J, Ostera G et al. Delaying transfer to the third day post-insemination, to select non-arrested embryos, increases development to the fetal heart stage. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 177-82.
67. Laverge H, De Sutter P, Van de Elst J et al. A prospective, randomized study comparing day 2 and day 3 embryo transfer in human IVF. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 476-80.
68. de los Santos M, Mercader A, Galan A et al. Implantation rates after two, three or five days of embryo culture. Placenta 2003; 24: S13-S19.
69. Pantos K, Makrakis E, Stavrou D et al. Comparison of embryo transfer on day 2, day 3, and day 6: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 454.
70. Oatway C, Gunby J, Daya S. Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004: Art. No. CD004378.
71. Gardner D, Schoolcraft W, Wagley L et al. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 3434-40.
72. AA medium: is a two-step protocol necessary? Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5: 133-40.
73. Biggers J, McGinnis L, Lawitts J. One-step versus two-step culture of mouse pre-implantation embryos: is there a difference? Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3376-84.
74. Gardner D, Vella P, Lane M et al. Culture and transfer of human blastocyst increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 84-8.
75. Blake D, Proctor M, Johnson N et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (2): CD002118.
76. Papanikolaou E, Camus M, Kolibianakis E et al. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1139-46.
77. Criniti A, Thyer A, Chow G et al. Elective single blastocyst transfer reduces twin rates without compromising pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 1613-19.
78. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003 Assisted reproductive technology success rates. National summary and fertility clinic reports: US Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ Art2003/index.htm.
79. Hill G, Freeman M, Bastias M. The influence of oocyte maturity and embryo quality on pregnancy rate in a program for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 801-6.
80. Hellberg D, Blennborn M, Nilsson S. Defining women who are prone to have twins in in vitro fertilization - a necessary step towards single embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005; 22: 199-206.
81. De Neubourg D, Gerris J, Mangelschots K et al. Single top quality embryo tansfer as a model for prediction of early pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 1476-9.
82. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2392-402.
83. Thurin A, Hardarson T, Hausken J et al. Predictors of ongoing implantation in IVF in a good prognosis group of patients. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1876-80.
84. Henman M, Catt J, Wood T et al. Elective transfer of single fresh blastocysts and later transfer of cryostored blastocysts reduces the twin pregnancy rate and can improve the in vitro fertilization live birth rate in younger women. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 1620-7.