Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy helps to achieve a live birth with fewer transfer cycles for the blastocyst FET patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the value of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a screening test for patients suffering from unexplained recurrent implantation failure (RIF).

Methods

After screening patients in one reproductive medicine center, twenty-nine, forty-nine and thirty-eight women (< 40 years old) who had suffered unexplained RIF with PGT-A, or RIF without PGT-A, or no RIF with PGT-A were included. The clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per transfer, the conservative and optimal cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (CCPR) and live birth rates (CLBR) after three blastocyst FETs were analyzed.

Results

The live birth rate per transfer was significantly higher in the RIF + PGT-A group than that in the RIF + NO PGT-A group (47.6% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.014). After 3 cycles of FET, RIF + PGT-A group had significantly higher conservative CLBR and optimal CLBR compared to the RIF + NO PGT-A group (69.0% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.002 and 73.7% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.016), but had similar conservative and optimal CLBRs compared to the NO RIF + PGT-A group. The number of FET cycles required when half women achieved a live birth was 1 in the PGT-A group and 3 in RIF + NO PGT-A group. The miscarriage rates were not different between the RIF + PGT-A and RIF + NO PGT-A, RIF + PGT-A and NO RIF + PGT-A groups.

Conclusion

PGT-A did be superior in reducing the number of transfer cycles required to achieve a similar live birth rate. Further studies to identify the RIF patients who would benefit most from PGT-A are necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Busnelli A et al (2020) How common is real repeated implantation failure? An indirect estimate of the prevalence. Reprod Biomed Online 40(1):91–97

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cimadomo D et al (2021) Definition, diagnostic and therapeutic options in recurrent implantation failure: an international survey of clinicians and embryologists. Hum Reprod 36(2):305–317

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bashiri A, Halper KI, Orvieto R (2018) Recurrent Implantation Failure-update overview on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and future directions. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 16(1):121

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ni T et al (2020) Comprehensive analysis of the associations between previous pregnancy failures and blastocyst aneuploidy as well as pregnancy outcomes after PGT-A. J Assist Reprod Genet 37(3):579–588

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Pirtea P et al (2021) Rate of true recurrent implantation failure is low: results of three successive frozen euploid single embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 115(1):45–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Theobald R, SenGupta S, Harper J (2020) The status of preimplantation genetic testing in the UK and USA. Hum Reprod 35(4):986–998

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Mochizuki L, Gleicher N (2020) The PGS/PGT-A controversy in IVF addressed as a formal conflict resolution analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 37(3):677–687

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Cornelisse S et al (2020) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD005291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yan J et al (2021) Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med 385(22):2047–2058

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ozgur K et al (2019) Single best euploid versus single best unknown-ploidy blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: a randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 36(4):629–636

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Munne S et al (2019) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 112(6):1071-1079 e7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gleicher N, Patrizio P, Brivanlou A (2021) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy—a castle built on sand. Trends Mol Med 27(8):731–742

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy LA et al (2019) To test or not to test? A framework for counselling patients on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Hum Reprod 34(2):268–275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Group, E.P.-S.P.-A.W. et al (2020) ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the detection of structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations. Hum Reprod Open 3:hoaa017

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sciorio R, Dattilo M (2020) PGT-A preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and embryo selection in routine ART cycles: time to step back? Clin Genet 98(2):107–115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patrizio P et al (2019) Worldwide live births following the transfer of chromosomally “Abnormal” embryos after PGT/A: results of a worldwide web-based survey. J Assist Reprod Genet 36(8):1599–1607

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sacchi L et al (2019) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy improves clinical, gestational, and neonatal outcomes in advanced maternal age patients without compromising cumulative live-birth rate. J Assist Reprod Genet 36(12):2493–2504

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Verpoest W et al (2018) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 33(9):1767–1776

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ubaldi FM et al (2017) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril 107(5):1173–1180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee HL et al (2015) In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet 32(3):435–444

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhatt SJ et al (2021) Pregnancy outcomes following in vitro fertilization frozen embryo transfer (IVF-FET) with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL): a SART-CORS study. Hum Reprod 36(8):2339–2344

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Murugappan G et al (2016) Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod 31(8):1668–1674

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sato T et al (2020) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod 35(1):255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tong J et al (2021) Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of trophectoderm biopsy for recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients: a retrospective study. Reprod Sci 28(7):1923–1929

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Modest AM et al (2018) IVF success corrected for drop-out: use of inverse probability weighting. Hum Reprod 33(12):2295–2301

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilkinson J, Roberts SA, Vail A (2017) Developments in IVF warrant the adoption of new performance indicators for ART clinics, but do not justify the abandonment of patient-centred measures. Hum Reprod 32(6):1155–1159

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kemper JM et al (2020) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: are we examining the correct outcomes? Hum Reprod 35(11):2408–2412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S (2015) Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod 30(12):2703–2707

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Voncina SM et al (2021) Sperm DNA fragmentation index and cumulative live birth rate in a cohort of 2,713 couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Fertil Steril 116(6):1483–1490

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cameron NJ et al (2017) Cumulative live birth rates following miscarriage in an initial complete cycle of IVF: a retrospective cohort study of 112 549 women. Hum Reprod 32(11):2287–2297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Luke B et al (2012) Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med 366(26):2483–2491

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Xu B et al (2018) Cumulative live birth rates in more than 3,000 patients with poor ovarian response: a 15-year survey of final in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 109(6):1051–1059

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gardner DK et al (2019) Reprint of: blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 112(4 Suppl1):e81–e84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ghobara T, Gelbaya TA, Ayeleke RO (2017) Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD003414

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Koot YEM et al (2019) What is the prognosis for a live birth after unexplained recurrent implantation failure following IVF/ICSI? Hum Reprod 34(10):2044–2052

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rajkhowa M, Algar V, Sharma V (2000) Factors influencing the cumulative conception rate and discontinuation of in-vitro fertilisation treatment for infertility. J Reprod Fertil Abstr Ser 25:71

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pantou A et al (2022) The impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes in high risk patients. J Assist Reprod Genet 39(6):1341–1349

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wells D, Delhanty JDA (2000) Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 6(11):1055–1062

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Voullaire L et al (2000) Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 106(2):210–217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Franasiak JM et al (2021) A review of the pathophysiology of recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril 116(6):1436–1448

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Munne S et al (2000) Outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations. Fertil Steril 73(6):1209–1218

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Xiang H et al (2021) Exome-sequencing identifies novel genes associated with recurrent pregnancy loss in a chinese cohort. Front Genet 12:746082

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rubio C et al (2017) In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 107(5):1122–1129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Roque M, Simon C (2020) Time to pregnancy: as important for patients as underestimated by doctors. Fertil Steril 113(3):522–523

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Domar AD et al (2010) A prospective investigation into the reasons why insured United States patients drop out of in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 94(4):1457–1459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive, M. et al (2018) The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 109(3):429–436

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the physicians and embryologists of the reproductive medicine center of the Chinese PLA General Hospital.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sidong Wang and Luochuan Liu have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China

    Sidong Wang, Minyue Ma, Hui Wang, Huiting Zhang, Fengming Dong, Ye Tian, Jiangnan Song, Hongmei Peng & Yuanqing Yao

  2. College of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China

    Luochuan Liu, Xinmeng Guo & Bolun Zhang

  3. Kiang Wu Hospital, Macau SAR, 999078, China

    Yibing Han

  4. Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Fertility Regulation, Reproductive Medicine Center, The University of Hong Kong—Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, 518053, China

    William S. B. Yeung, Yanfei Cheng & Yuanqing Yao

Authors
  1. Sidong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luochuan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minyue Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yibing Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xinmeng Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. William S. B. Yeung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yanfei Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Huiting Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fengming Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Bolun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ye Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jiangnan Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Hongmei Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Yuanqing Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SW and LL contributed to the study design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript writing. MM contributed to the diagnosis of blastocysts, biopsy and clinical data acquisition. HW, YH, WSBY and YC contributed to the design of the study and revised the article critically. XG, HZ, FD, BZ, YT and JS contributed to the acquisition of the data. YY, HP initiated and contributed to the conception and design of the study and assisted in the interpretation of the data and revising the draft critically.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hongmei Peng or Yuanqing Yao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest were involved.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Chinese PLA General Hospital.

Consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent to publish

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 38 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, S., Liu, L., Ma, M. et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy helps to achieve a live birth with fewer transfer cycles for the blastocyst FET patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure. Arch Gynecol Obstet 308, 599–610 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07041-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07041-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation