Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:27:03.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of embryo implantation rate using a sole parameter of timing of starting blastulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2022

Elena Soukhov ,
Gilad Karavani Open the ORCID record for Gilad Karavani [Opens in a new window] ,
Irit Szaingurten-Solodkin ,
Samira Alfayumi-Zeadna ,
Guy Elharar ,
Dganit Richter ,
Tamar Wainstock ,
Atif Zeadna ,
Eliahu Levitas  and
Iris Har-Vardi
Elena Soukhov
Affiliation:
Medical School for International Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Gilad Karavani*
Affiliation:
Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah Ein-Kerem Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Irit Szaingurten-Solodkin
Affiliation:
Fertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Samira Alfayumi-Zeadna
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Guy Elharar
Affiliation:
Fertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Dganit Richter
Affiliation:
Fertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Tamar Wainstock
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Atif Zeadna
Affiliation:
Fertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Eliahu Levitas
Affiliation:
Fertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
Iris Har-Vardi
Affiliation:
Fertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
*
Authors for correspondence: Gilad Karavani. IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah University Hospital, Ein-Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel. Tel: +972 542065339. Fax: +972 26776413. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A time-lapse monitoring system provides a complete picture of the dynamic embryonic development process and simultaneously supplies extensive morphokinetic data. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the use of the morphokinetic parameter of time of starting blastulation (tSB) can improve the implantation rate of day-5 transferred blastocyst selected based on morphological parameters. In this retrospective study we analyzed the morphokinetics of 196 day-5 transferred blastocysts, selected solely based on morphological parameters. The interval time from intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) to time of starting blastocyst formation (tSB) was calculated for each embryo. The overall implantation rate of transferred blastocyst, selected based only on morphological parameters, was 49.2%. Implantation rate, determined retrospectively, was significantly higher (58.8% versus 42.6%, P = 0.02) for embryos with a short interval time to tSB (78–95.9 h) compared with embryos with a longer timeframe (96–114 h). Time of expanded blastocyst (tEB) post-ICSI was also significantly associated with implantation; however, this parameter was not available for all the embryos at time of transfer. When we tested only high ranked KIDScore day-3 sub-group embryos, the implantation rate was significantly higher in short interval time embryos compared with longer interval time embryos (62.2% vs. 45.5%, respectively, P = 0.02).

These observations emphasize the importance of the timing of starting blastulation over blastocyst morphological parameters and may provide a preferable criterion for good morphology day-5 blastocyst selection.

Keywords

BlastocystEmbryo selectionKIDScoreMorphokineticsStarting time of blastulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 501 - 508
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Adler, A, Lee, HL, McCulloh, DH, Ampeloquio, E, Clarke-Williams, M, Wertz, BH and Grifo, J (2014). Blastocyst culture selects for euploid embryos: comparison of blastomere and trophectoderm biopsies. Reprod Biomed Online 28, 485–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrenetxea, G, López de Larruzea, A, Ganzabal, T, Jiménez, R, Carbonero, K and Mandiola, M (2005). Blastocyst culture after repeated failure of cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a comparison of day 5 and day 6 transfers. Fertil Steril 83, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, DA, Farquhar, CM, Johnson, N and Proctor, M (2004). Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD002118.Google Scholar
Campbell, A, Fishel, S, Bowman, N, Duffy, S, Sedler, M and Thornton, S (2013). Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online 27, 140–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, A, Fishel, S and Laegdsmand, M (2014). Aneuploidy is a key causal factor of delays in blastulation: author response to ‘A cautionary note against aneuploidy risk assessment using time-lapse imaging’. Reprod Biomed Online 28, 279–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrasco, B, Arroyo, G, Gil, Y, Gómez, MJ, Rodríguez, I, Barri, PN, Veiga, A and Boada, M (2017). Selecting embryos with the highest implantation potential using data mining and decision tree based on classical embryo morphology and morphokinetics. J Assist Reprod Genet 34, 983–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cetinkaya, M, Pirkevi, C, Yelke, H, Colakoglu, YK, Atayurt, Z and Kahraman, S (2015). Relative kinetic expressions defining cleavage synchronicity are better predictors of blastocyst formation and quality than absolute time points. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conaghan, J, Chen, AA, Willman, SP, Ivani, K, Chenette, PE, Boostanfar, R, Baker, VL, Adamson, GD, Abusief, ME, Gvakharia, M, Loewke, KE and Shen, S (2013). Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril 100, 412–9.e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coticchio, G, Mignini Renzini, M, Novara, PV, Lain, M, De Ponti, E, Turchi, D, Fadini, R and Dal Canto, M (2018). Focused time-lapse analysis reveals novel aspects of human fertilization and suggests new parameters of embryo viability. Hum Reprod 33, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruz, M, Garrido, N, Herrero, J, Pérez-Cano, I, Muñoz, M and Meseguer, M (2012). Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online 25, 371–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desai, N, Ploskonka, S, Goodman, LR, Austin, C, Goldberg, J and Falcone, T (2014). Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12, 54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desai, N, Goldberg, JM, Austin, C and Falcone, T (2018). Are cleavage anomalies, multinucleation, or specific cell cycle kinetics observed with time-lapse imaging predictive of embryo developmental capacity or ploidy? Fertil Steril 109, 665–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faramarzi, A, Khalili, MA and Ashourzadeh, S (2017). Oocyte morphology and embryo morphokinetics in an intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection programme. Is there a relationship? Zygote 25, 190–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findikli, N and Oral, E (2014). Time-lapse embryo imaging technology: does it improve the clinical results? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 26, 138–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fishel, S, Campbell, A, Montgomery, S, Smith, R, Nice, L, Duffy, S, Jenner, L, Berrisford, K, Kellam, L, Smith, R, D’Cruz, I and Beccles, A (2017). Live births after embryo selection using morphokinetics versus conventional morphology: a retrospective analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 35, 407–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Vella, P, Lane, M, Wagley, L, Schlenker, T and Schoolcraft, WB (1998). Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 69, 84–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T and Schoolcraft, WB (2000). Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 73, 1155–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerris, J and Van Royen, E (2000). Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART: a plea for single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 15, 1884–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glujovsky, D, Blake, D, Farquhar, C and Bardach, A (2012). Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD002118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, LR, Goldberg, J, Falcone, T, Austin, C and Desai, N (2016). Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 105, 275–85.e10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J, Han, T, Porter, R, Levy, M, Stillman, R and Tucker, MJ (2000). Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril 74, 495–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashimoto, S, Kato, N, Saeki, K and Morimoto, Y (2012). Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril 97, 332–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashimoto, S, Amo, A, Hama, S, Ito, K, Nakaoka, Y and Morimoto, Y (2013). Growth retardation in human blastocysts increases the incidence of abnormal spindles and decreases implantation potential after vitrification. Hum Reprod 28, 1528–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrero, J and Meseguer, M (2013). Selection of high potential embryos using time-lapse imaging: the era of morphokinetics. Fertil Steril 99, 1030–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horsthemke, B and Ludwig, M (2005). Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 11, 473–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, SM, Lee, SW, Yoon, SH, Kim, JC, Lim, JH and Lee, SG (2013). Comparison of clinical outcomes between single and double vitrified-warmed blastocyst embryo transfer according to the day of vitrification. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 779–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkegaard, K, Kesmodel, US, Hindkjær, JJ and Ingerslev, HJ (2013). Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 28, 2643–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y, Chapple, V, Feenan, K, Roberts, P and Matson, P (2015). Time-lapse videography of human embryos: using pronuclear fading rather than insemination in IVF and ICSI cycles removes inconsistencies in time to reach early cleavage milestones. Reprod Biol 15, 122–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y, Chapple, V, Feenan, K, Roberts, P and Matson, P (2016). Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril 105, 656–662.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manipalviratn, S, DeCherney, A and Segars, J (2009). Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 91, 305–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A, Hilligsøe, KM, Ramsing, NB and Remohí, J (2011). The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 26, 2658–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milki, AA, Hinckley, MD, Fisch, JD, Dasig, D and Behr, B (2000). Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil Steril 73, 126–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mizobe, Y, Tokunaga, M, Oya, N, Iwakiri, R, Yoshida, N, Sato, Y, Onoue, N and Ezono, Y (2018). Synchrony of the first division as an index of the blastocyst formation rate during embryonic development. Reprod Med Biol 17, 64–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Motato, Y, de los Santos, MJ, Escriba, MJ, Ruiz, BA, Remohí, J and Meseguer, M (2016). Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril 105, 376–84.e9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mumusoglu, S, Ozbek, IY, Sokmensuer, LK, Polat, M, Bozdag, G, Papanikolaou, E and Yarali, H (2017). Duration of blastulation may be associated with ongoing pregnancy rate in single euploid blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 35, 633–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niemitz, EL and Feinberg, AP (2004). Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet 74, 599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papanikolaou, EG, D’haeseleer, E, Verheyen, G, Van de Velde, H, Camus, M, Van Steirteghem, A, Devroey, P and Tournaye, H (2005). 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 20, 3198–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, Camus, M, Kolibianakis, EM, Van Landuyt, L, Van Steirteghem, A and Devroey, P (2006). In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med 354, 1139–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, BM, Boel, M, Montag, M and Gardner, DK (2016). Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Hum Reprod 31, 2231–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porat, N, Boehnlein, LM, Barker, MA, Kovacs, P and Lindheim, SR (2010). Blastocyst embryo transfer is the primary determinant for improved outcomes in oocyte donation cycles. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 36, 357–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2013). Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 99, 44–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehman, KS, Bukulmez, O, Langley, M, Carr, BR, Nackley, AC, Doody, KM and Doody, KJ (2007). 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 87, 1041–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reignier, A, Lammers, J, Barriere, P and Freour, T (2018). Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 36, 380–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Richter, KS, Harris, DC and Daneshmand, ST (2001). A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril 75, 1126–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholtes, MC and Zeilmaker, GH (1996). A prospective, randomized study of embryo transfer results after 3 or 5 days of embryo culture in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 65, 1245–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoolcraft, WB, Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Schlenker, T, Hamilton, F and Meldrum, DR (1999). Blastocyst culture and transfer: analysis of results and parameters affecting outcome in two in vitro fertilization programs. Fertil Steril 72, 604–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, De Neubourg, D, Valkenburg, M, Van de Meerssche, M, Ryckaert, G, Eestermans, W and Gerris, J (1999). Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 14, 2345–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, CC, Loewke, KE, Bossert, NL, Behr, B, De Jonge, CJ, Baer, TM and Reijo Pera, RA (2010). Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 28, 1115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, C, Chen, AA, Behr, B and Shen, S (2013). Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod Biomed Online 26, 120–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, L, Han, W, Zhang, X, Wang, J, Liu, W, Xiong, S and Huang, G (2016). A retrospective analysis of morphokinetic parameters according to the implantation outcome of IVF treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 197, 186–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar