Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Time-lapse imaging systems in IVF laboratories: a French national survey

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Although the clinical value of time-lapse imaging (TLI) systems in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is still debated, its prevalence worldwide seems to be expanding. The situation of TLI in the USA has been recently surveyed, but these results might not be transposable to other countries with different IVF regulation and funding such as France. This study evaluated the TLI situation in French IVF laboratories.

Methods

An anonymous online cross-sectional survey was sent by email to 210 embryologists in September and October 2017. Laboratories, demographics, TLI clinical use, purchasing plan, and embryologists’ opinions were analyzed using logistic regression to calculate odds ratio.

Results

Of the 210 lab directors surveyed, 78 responded (37.1%), 43 (55%) working in private IVF laboratories and 35 (45%) in public hospitals. Thirty (38.5%) were TLI users. The odds of TLI possession were not statistically different according to laboratory sector or size. Most embryologists (n = 21, 70%) used TLI for unselected patients. Cost was the main reason given by non-users for not implementing TLI (n = 24, 50%). Most respondents were convinced that TLI is superior to standard morphology (n = 52, 73.2%) and that TLI improves culture conditions (n = 62, 84.9%). However, half (n = 39, 54.9%) indicated that evidence was still lacking to assert TLI clinical usefulness.

Conclusion

The prevalence of TLI systems and embryologists’ opinion in France was slightly different from the American situation. The different regulation and funding policy might account for some differences in terms of TLI use and perception.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ESHRE Guideline Group on Good Practice in IVF Labs, De los Santos MJ, Apter S, Coticchio G, Debrock S, Lundin K, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Hum Reprod. 2016;31(4):685–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Capmany G, Taylor A, Braude PR, Bolton VN. The timing of pronuclear formation, DNA synthesis and cleavage in the human 1-cell embryo. Mol Hum Reprod. 1996;2(5):299–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gonzales DS, Boatman DE, Bavister BD. Kinematics of trophectoderm projections and locomotion in the peri-implantation hamster blastocyst. Dev Dyn. 1996;205(4):435–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:532–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Alhelou Y, Mat Adenan NA, Ali J. Embryo culture conditions are significantly improved during uninterrupted incubation: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biol. 2018;18(1):40–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Desai N, Goldberg JM, Austin C, Falcone T. Are cleavage anomalies, multinucleation, or specific cell cycle kinetics observed with time-lapse imaging predictive of embryo developmental capacity or ploidy? Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):665–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Grøndahl ML, Kesmodel US, Ingerslev HJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(6):565–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kirkegaard K, Ahlström A, Ingerslev HJ, Hardarson T. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):323–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Martínez-Granados L, Serrano M, González-Utor A, Ortíz N, Badajoz V, Olaya E, et al. Inter-laboratory agreement on embryo classification and clinical decision: conventional morphological assessment vs. time lapse. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sundvall L, Ingerslev HJ, Breth Knudsen U, Kirkegaard K. Inter- and intra-observer variability of time-lapse annotations. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(12):3215–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertil Steril. 2017;108(5):722–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Yuan J, Liu F. Does time-lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fishel S, Campbell A, Montgomery S, Smith R, Nice L, Duffy S, et al. Live births after embryo selection using morphokinetics versus conventional morphology: a retrospective analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35(4):407–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mascarenhas M, Fox SJ, Thompson K, Balen AH. Cumulative live birth rates and perinatal outcomes with the use of time-lapse imaging incubators for embryo culture: a retrospective cohort study of 1882 ART cycles. BJOG. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15161.

  15. Paulson RJ, Reichman DE, Zaninovic N, Goodman LR, Racowsky C. Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should. Fertil Steril. 2018 Apr;109(4):584–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35(5):511–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Racowsky C, Kovacs P, Martins WP. A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1025–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Racowsky C, Martins WP. Effectiveness and safety of time-lapse imaging for embryo culture and selection: it is still too early for any conclusions? Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):450–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reignier A, Lammers J, Barriere P, Freour T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36(4):380–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dolinko AV, Farland LV, Kaser DJ, Missmer S, Racowsky C. National survey on use of time-lapse imaging systems in IVF laboratories. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(9):1167–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Agence de la Biomedecine. 2015 Assisted reproductive therapy report. Annual Report, 2017, 1–94 https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2016/donnees/procreation/01-amp/pdf/amp.pdf.Accessed 18 Avr 2018.

  22. Shaulov T, Belisle S, Dahan MH. Public health implications of a North American publicly funded in vitro fertilization program; lessons to learn. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(9):1385–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vélez MP, Connolly MP, Kadoch IJ, Phillips S, Bissonnette F. Universal coverage of IVF pays off. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1313–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dieke AC, Mehta A, Kissin DM, Nangia AK, Warner L, Boulet SL. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection use in states with and without insurance coverage mandates for infertility treatment, United States, 2000–2015. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):691–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Storr A, Venetis CA, Cooke S, Kilani S, Ledger W. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists during selection of a single day 5 embryo for transfer: a multicenter study. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(2):307–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ruiz de Assin R, Clavero A, Gonzalvo MC, Rosales A, Zamora S, Martinez L, et al. Reducing inter-observer variability in embryo evaluation by means of training courses. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(11):1129–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryoimplantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection bymorphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the embryoscope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1287–1294.e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: asystematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):617–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Armstrong S, Arroll N, Cree LM, Jordan V, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2:CD011320.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de biologie et médecine de la reproduction, CHU Nantes, 38 boulevard Jean Monnet, 44093, Nantes, France

    Thomas Boueilh, Arnaud Reignier, Paul Barriere & Thomas Freour

  2. Centre d’Assistance Médicale à la Procréation-CECOS, CHU Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France

    Thomas Boueilh

  3. Faculté de médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France

    Arnaud Reignier, Paul Barriere & Thomas Freour

  4. Centre de Recherche en Transplantation et Immunologie UMR 1064, INSERM, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France

    Arnaud Reignier, Paul Barriere & Thomas Freour

Authors
  1. Thomas Boueilh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnaud Reignier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Barriere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Freour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Freour.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

Time-lapse imaging systems in IVF laboratories: French national survey (DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boueilh, T., Reignier, A., Barriere, P. et al. Time-lapse imaging systems in IVF laboratories: a French national survey. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 2181–2186 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1302-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1302-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation