BackgroundTime-lapse imaging combined with embryo morphokinetics may offer a non-invasive means for improving embryo selection. Data from clinics worldwide are necessary to compare and ultimately develop embryo classifications models using kinetic data. The primary objective of this study was to determine if there were kinetic differences between embryos with limited potential and those more often associated with in vitro blastocyst formation and/or implantation. We also wanted to compare putative kinetic markers for embryo selection as proposed by other laboratories to what we were observing in our own laboratory setting.MethodsKinetic data and cycle outcomes were retrospectively analyzed in patients age 39 and younger with 7 or more zygotes cultured in the Embryoscope. Timing of specific events from the point of insemination were determined using time-lapse (TL) imaging. The following kinetic markers were assessed: time to syngamy (tPNf), t2, time to two cells (c), 3c (t3), 4c ( t4), 5c (t5), 8c (t8), morula (tMor), start of blastulation (tSB); tBL, blastocyst (tBL); expanded blastocyst (tEBL). Durations of the second (cc2) and third (cc3) cell cycles, the t5-t2 interval as well as time to complete synchronous divisions s1, s2 and s3 were calculated. Incidence and impact on development of nuclear and cleavage anomalies were also assessed.ResultsA total of 648 embryos transferred on day 5 were analyzed. The clinical pregnancy and implantation rate were 72% and 50%, respectively. Morphokinetic data showed that tPNf, t2,t4, t8, s1, s2,s3 and cc2 were significantly different in embryos forming blastocysts (ET or frozen) versus those with limited potential either failing to blastulate or else forming poor quality blastocysts ,ultimately discarded. Comparison of embryo kinetics in cycles with all embryos implanting (KID+) versus no implantation (KID-) suggested that markers of embryo competence to implant may be different from ability to form a blastocyst. The incidence of multinucleation and reverse cleavage amongst the embryos observed was 25% and 7%, respectively. Over 40% of embryos exhibiting these characteristics did however form blastocysts meeting our criteria for freezing.ConclusionsThese data provide us with a platform with which to potentially enhance embryo selection for transfer.
Embryo cryopreservation is an important aspect of assisted reproduction. Many methods have been described, but they have been poorly investigated in randomized trials, highlighting the need for a systematic review of the literature. Meticulous electronic/hand searches were performed to locate randomized trials (RCT) comparing embryo cryopreservation methods. Primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and incidence of congenital abnormalities. Secondary outcomes included live-birth (LBR), ongoing pregnancy (OPR), implantation (IR), and miscarriage (MR) rates. Data were extracted to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis and analysed using a random-effects model. Literature search revealed 11 RCT, of which five were excluded. The quality of the included studies was variable, but generally poor. There was a significantly higher CPR, OPR and IR with vitrification compared with slow freezing (odds ratio (OR)=1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.03-2.32, OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.04-3.20 and OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.03-2.15, respectively). In addition, there was a significantly lower CPR and OPR with embryo ultra-rapid freezing compared with slow freezing (OR=0.35, 95% CI=0.16-0.76 and OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.17-0.81, respectively). Vitrification is superior to slow freezing, which in turn is superior to ultra-rapid freezing. However, more well-designed and powered studies are needed to further corroborate these findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.