Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:27:45.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Why Do We Bother with Embryo Selection?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2023

By
Arne Sunde  and
Kersti Lundin
Edited by
Catherine Racowsky ,
Jacques Cohen  and
Nicholas Macklon
Catherine Racowsky
Affiliation:
Hôpital Foch, France
Jacques Cohen
Affiliation:
IVF 2.0, New York
Nicholas Macklon
Affiliation:
London Women's Clinic
Get access

Summary

When fertilization in vitro was developed by the pioneers, Dr Robert G (Bob) Edwards, Miss Jean Purdy and Dr Patrick Steptoe, their primary focus was to obtain oocytes which could be successfully fertilized in laboratory conditions. Embryo culture and embryo selection were just secondary aims at that time. In the early 70s, the first attempts to obtain a pregnancy after IVF were in cycles in which ovarian stimulation was performed by administration of human menopausal gonadotropins (hMG) (Elder & Johnson, 2015).

Type
Chapter
Information
Manual of Embryo Selection in Human Assisted Reproduction , pp. 1 - 9
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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.)

References

Elder, K, Johnson, MH. The Oldham Notebooks: an analysis of the development of IVF 1969–1978. II. The treatment cycles and their outcomes. Reprod Biomed Soc. 2015;1:9–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fishel, S. First in vitro fertilization baby – this is how it happened. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:5–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steptoe, PC, Edwards, RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet. 1978 August 12:366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, HW Jr, Jones, GS, Andrews, MC, Acosta, A, Bundren, C, Garcia, J, et al. The program for in vitro fertilization at Norfolk. Fertil Steril. 1982;38:14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baerwald, AR, Adams, GP, Pierson, RA. Ovarian antral folliculogenesis during the human menstrual cycle: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:73–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuccotti, M, Merico, V, Cecconi, S, Redi, CA, Garagna, S. What does it take to make a developmentally competent mammalian egg? Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:525–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogden, GD. The dominant follicle. Fertil Steril. 1982;38:281–300.Google Scholar
Gruhn, JR, Zielinska, AP, Shukla, V, Blanshard, R, Capalbo, A, Cimadomo, D, et al. Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science. 2019;365:1466–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franasiak, JM, Forman, EJ, Hong, KH, Werner, MD, Upham, KM, Treff, NR, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):656–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misell, LM, Holochwost, D, Boban, D, Santi, N, Shefi, S, Hellerstein, MK, Turek, PJ. A stable isotope-mass spectrometric method for measuring human spermatogenesis kinetics in vivo. J Urol. 2006;175:242–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colaco, S, Sakkas, D. Paternal factors contributing to embryo quality. JARG. 2018;35:1953–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E, Alfarawati, S, Spath, K, Wells, D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20(2):117–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E, Munne, S, Wells, D. The cytogenetic constitution of human blastocysts: insight from comprehensive chromosome screening strategies. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:15–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubinsky, M. Evolutionary justification for human reproductive imitations. JARG. 2018:35;2133–9.Google Scholar
Wale, PL, Gardner, DK. The effect of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:2–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleikers, SHN, Eijssen, LMT, Coonen, E, Derhaag, JG, Mantikou, E, Jonker, MJ, et al. Difference in gene expression profiles between human preimplantation embryos cultured in two different IVF culture media. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2303–11.Google Scholar
Sunde, A, Brison, D, Dumoulin, J, Harper, J, Lundin, K, Ven den Abbeel, E, Veiga, A. Time to take human embryo culture seriously. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2174–82.Google Scholar
Munné, S, Alikani, M, Ribustello, L, Colls, P, Martínez-Ortiz, PA, Referring Physician Group, McCulloh, DH. Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers. Human Reprod. 2017;32(4):743–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumoulin, JC, Land, JA, Van Montfoort, AP, Nelissen, EC, Coonen, E, Derhaag, JG, et al. Effect of in vitro culture of human embryos on birthweight of newborns. Human Reprod. 2010;25(3):605–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klejkers, SHM, Mantikou, E, Slappendel, E, Consten, D, van Echten-Arnds, J, Wetzels, AM, et al. Influence of embryo culture medium (G5 and HTF) on pregnancy and perinatal outcome after IVF: a multicenter RCT. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2219–30.Google Scholar
Zandstra, H, Brentjens, LBPM, Spauwen, B, Touwslager, RNH, Bons, JAP, Mulder, AL, et al. Association of culture medium with growth, weight and cardiovascular development of IVF children at the age of 9 years. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1645–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyns, C, De Geyter, C, Calhaz-Jorge, C, Kupka, MS, Motrenko, T, Smeenk, J, et al. ART in Europe, 2018: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;Jul 5.Google Scholar
Sunderam, S, Zhang, Y, Jewett, A, Kissin, DM. State-specific assisted reproductive technology surveillance, United States: 2019 data brief. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2021 Oct. Available from: www.cdc.gov/art/state-specific-surveillance/2019/pdf/state-specific-art-surveillance-u.s.-2019-data-brief-h.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bergh, T, Ericson, A, Hillensjö, T, Nygren, KG, Wennerholm, UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999;354:1579–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Multiple gestation pregnancy. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1856–64.Google Scholar
Helmerhorst, FM, Perquin, DA, Donker, D, Keirse, MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004;328:261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, SW, Demissie, K, Yang, Q, Walker, MC. Maternal morbidity and obstetric complications in triplet pregnancies and quadruplet and higher-order multiple pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:254–8.Google Scholar
Pinborg, A, Wennerholm, UB, Romundstad, LB, Loft, A, Aittomaki, K, Söderström-Anttila, V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:87–104.Google Scholar
Sazonova, A, Källen, K, Thurin-Kjellberg, A, Wennerholm, UB, Bergh, C. Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:731–7.Google Scholar
Karlström, PO, Bergh, C. Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden – impact on delivery and multiple birth rates. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2202–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henningsen, AA, Gissler, M, Skjaerven, R, Bergh, C, Tiitinen, A, Romundstad, LB, et al. Trends in perinatal health after assisted reproduction: a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:710–16.Google Scholar
Thurin, A, Hausken, J, Hillensjö, T, Jablonowska, B, Pinborg, A, Strandell, A, Bergh, C. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402.Google Scholar
McLernon, DJ, Harrild, K, Bergh, C, Davies, MJ, de Neubourg, D, Dumoulin, JC, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945.Google Scholar
Pandian, Z, Marjoribanks, J, Ozturk, O, Serour, G, Bhattacharya, S. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 29(7):CD003416.Google Scholar
Stone, BA, March, CM, Ringler, GE, Baek, KJ, Marrs, RP. Casting for determinants of blastocyst yield and of rates of implantation and of pregnancy after blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1055–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulain, M, Hesters, L, Sanglier, T, de Bantel, A, Fanchin, R, Frydman, N, Grynberg, M. Is it acceptable to destroy or include human embryos before day 5 in research programmes? Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28:522–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sallem, A, Santulli, P, Barraud-Lange, V, Le Foll, N, Ferreux, L, Maignien, C, et al. Extended culture of poor-quality supernumerary embryos improves ART outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:311–19.Google Scholar
Li, M, Wang, Y, Shi, J. Do day-3 embryo grade predict day-5 blastocyst transfer outcomes in patients with good prognosis? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35:36–9.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;May 29;5:CD011320.Google Scholar
Basile, N, Elkhatib, I, Meseguer, M. A strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis on time lapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019;31:148–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, I, Kuhlmann, R, Agerholm, I, Kirk, J, Herrero, J, Escriba, MJ, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1458–63.Google Scholar
Athayde Wirka, K, Chen, AA, Conaghan, J, Ivani, K, Gvakharia, M, Behr, B, et al. Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1637–48.Google Scholar
Kuznyetsov, V, Madjunkova, S, Antes, R, Abramov, R, Motamedi, G, Ibarrientos, Z, et al. Evaluation of a novel non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening approach. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0197262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, L, Bogale, B, Tang, Y, Lu, S, Xie, XS, Racowsky, C. Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in spent medium may be more reliable than trophectoderm biopsy. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2019; 116(28):14105–12.Google Scholar
Chen, J, Jia, L, Tingting, L, Yingchun, G, He, S, Zhang, Z, et al. Diagnostic efficiency of blastocyst culture medium in noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing (niPGT-A). Fertil Steril Reports. 2021;2(1):88–94.Google Scholar
Magli, MC, Albanese, C, Crippa, A, Tabanelli, C, Ferraretti, AP, Gianaroli, L. Deoxyribonucleic acid detection in blastocoelic fluid: a new predictor of embryo ploidy and viable pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:77–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khosravi, P, Kazemi, E, Zhan, Q, Malmsten, JE, Toschi, M, Zisimopoulos, P, et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:21.Google Scholar
Tran, D, Cooke, S, Illingworth, PJ, Gardner, DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1011–18.Google Scholar
Berntsen, J, Rimestad, J, Lassen, JT, Tran, D, Kragh, MF. Robust and generalizable embryo selection based on artificial intelligence and time-lapse image sequences. PLoS ONE 2022 17(2).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×