Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: predictive embryonic factors

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

Abstract

Purpose

In a preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycle, does the blastocyst quality before biopsy, or the day of biopsy, or the embryo hatching status have an impact on either euploidy or the rate of embryo survival after freezing?

Methods

This was a retrospective study including 6130 biopsied blastocysts coming from 1849 PGT-A cycles performed in our center (2016–2022). Embryos were categorized according to the inner cell mass and trophectoderm quality, using Gardner’s scoring (excellent: AA; good: AB, BA, BB; poor: AC, CA, BC, CB, CC); the day of biopsy (5 or 6); and their hatching status (fully hatched blastocysts [FHB] or non-fully hatched blastocysts [nFHB]). The independent relationship between each group and both euploidy and survival rate was assessed.

Results

Excellent-quality embryos were more euploid than both good- and poor-quality embryos (52.69%, 39.69%, and 26.21%; p < 0.001), and day 5–biopsied embryos were more euploid than day 6–biopsied embryos (39.98% and 34.80%; p < 0.001). Survival rates of excellent-quality (92.26%) and good-quality (92.47%) embryos were higher than survival rates in the poor-quality group (84.61%) (p = 0.011 and p = 0.002). Day 5–biopsied embryos survived better than day 6–biopsied embryos (93.71% vs. 83.69%; p < 0.001) and FHB had poorer survival than nFHB (78.61% vs. 93.52%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Excellent-quality and day 5–biopsied embryos are more prone to be euploid than good and poor or day 6–biopsied embryos, respectively. Poor-quality, day 6–biopsied embryos, and FHB have significantly lower survival after biopsy and vitrification.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, MF, upon request.

References

  1. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantational embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nat. 1990;344:768–70.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sermon K. Novel technologies emerging for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2017;17(1):71–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, Ivakhenko V, Wolf G, Kovalinskaya L, White M, Lifchez A, Kaplan B, Moise J, Valle J, Ginsberg A, Strom C, Kuliev A. Diagnosing and preventing inherited disease: pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:923–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Munne S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:2185–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, De Boer KA, Jansen RPS. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1628–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:624–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Minasi MG, Greco E. Current aspects of blastocyst culture, biopsy, and vitrification. CCE Curr Trends Clin Embryol. 2014;I:27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Infertility and Genetics beyond 1999. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999. p. 378–88.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, Casciani V, Scarcelli F, Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Varrichio MT, Greco E. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2245–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaing A, Kroener LL, Tassin R, Li M, Liu L, Buyalos R, et al. Earlier day of blastocyst development is predictive of embryonic euploidy across all ages: essential data for physician decision-making and counselling patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:119–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Wilson JM, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Comparison of aneuploidy, pregnancy and live birth rates between day 5 and day 6 blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:305–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hammond ER, Cree LM, Morbeck DE. Should extended blastocyst culture include Day 7? Hum Reprod. 2018;33:991–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rodriguez-Purata J, Gingold J, Lee J, Whitehouse M, Slifkin R, Briton-Jones C, et al. Hatching status before embryo transfer is not correlated with implantation rate in chromosomally screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2458–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Li N, Guan Y, Ren B, Zhang Y, Du Y, Kong H, Zhang Y, Lou H. Effect of blastocyst morphology and developmental rate on euploidy and live birth rates in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles with single-embryo transfer. Front Endocrinol. 2022;858042:13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tiegs AW, Sun L, Patounakis G, Scott RT Jr. Worth the wait? Day 7 blastocysts have lower euploidy rates but similar sustained implantation rates as day 5 and day 6 blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1632–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2089–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cram DS, Leigh D, Handyside A, Rechitsky L, Xu K, Harton G, et al. PGDIS Position Statement on the Transfer of Mosaic Embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39(Suppl 1):e1–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Grati FR, Gallazzi G, Branca L, Maggi F, Simoni G, Yaron Y. An evidence-based scoring system for prioritizing mosaic aneuploid embryos following preimplantation genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:442–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Fernández-Sánchez M, Carranza F, Carrera J, Vilella F, Pellicer A, Simón C. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalised embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:818–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Giunco H, Connerney M, Boylan C, Koelper N, Mersereau J, Berger DS. Embryo re-expansion does not affect clinical pregnancy rates in frozen embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:2933–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Patrizio P, Shoham G, Shoham Z, Leong M, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Worldwide live births following the transfer of chromosomally “Abnormal” embryos after PGT/A: results of a worldwide web-based survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1599–607.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Dovere L, Tacconi L, Soscia D, Giancani A, et al. Leave the past behind: women’s reproductive history shows no association with blastocysts’ euploidy and limited association with live birth rates after euploid embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 2021;36:929–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sacchi L, Albani E, Cesana A, Smeraldi A, Parini V, Fabiani M, et al. 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. 2019;36(12):2493–504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Sanders KD, Silvestri G, Gordon T, Griffin DK. Analysis of IVF live birth outcomes with and without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority data collection 2016–2018. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(12):3277–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. La Marca A, Capuzzo M, Imbrogno MG, Donno V, Spedicato GA, Sacchi S, Minasi MG, Spinella F, Greco P, Fiorentino F, Greco E. The complex relationship between female age and embryo euploidy. Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2020;73:103–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Awadalla MS, Vestal NL, McGinnis LK, Ahmady A, Paulson RJ. Effect of age and morphology on sustained implantation rate after euploid blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:395–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Irani M, O’Neill C, Palermo GD, Xu K, Zhang C, Qin X, et al. Blastocyst development rate influences implantation and live birth rates of similarly graded euploid blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:95-102.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Reig A, Franasiak J, Scott RT, Seli E. The impact of age beyond ploidy: outcome data from 8175 euploid single embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:595–602.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Levi-Setti PE, Soscia D, Orlando G, Albani E, et al. Associations of blastocyst features, trophectoderm biopsy and other laboratory practice with post-warming behavior and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1992–2001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1173–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cimadomo D, Soscia D, Vaiarelli A, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L. Looking past the appearance: a comprehensive description of the clinical contribution of poor-quality blastocysts to increase live birth rates during cycles with aneuploidy testing. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1206–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lane S, Reed L, Schoolcraft W, Katz-Jaffe M. Euploid day 7 blastocysts of infertility patients with only slow embryo development have reduced implantation potential. Reprod Med Online. 2022;44:858–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McDaniel K, Awadalla M, McGinnis L, Ahmady A. Transfer the best and biopsy the rest? Blastocyst euploidy rates differ by morphology and day of biopsy. Arc Gyn Obstet. 2021;303:249–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vega M, Breborowicz A, Moshier EL, McGovern PG, Keltz MD. Blastulation rates decline in a linear fashion from euploid to aneuploid embryos with single versus multiple chromosomal errors. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:394–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Deng J, Qianying Z, Cinnioglu C, Kayali R, Lathi R, Behr B. The impact of culture conditions on blastocyst formation and aneuploidy rates: a comparison between single-step and sequential media in a large academic practice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:161–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sfontouris I, Martins W, Nastri C, Viana I, Navarro P, Raine-Fenning N, van der Poel S, Rienzi L, Racowsky C. Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled tria’ls. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1261–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Maggiulli R, Giancani A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi F, Rienzi L. Human blastocyst biopsy and vitrification. J Vis Exp. 2019;26(149).

  39. Oliva M, Briton-Jones C, Gounko D, Lee J, Copperman A, Sekhon L. Factors associated with vitrification-warming survival in 6167 euploid blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Gen. 2021;38:2671–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shear MA, Vaughan DA, Modest AM, Seidler EA, Leung AQ, Hacker MR, Sakkas D, Penzias AS. Blasts from the past: is morphology useful in PGT-A tested and untested frozen embryo transfers? Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41:981–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Muthukumar K, Kamath MS, Mangalaraj AM, Aleyamma TK, Chandy A, George K. Comparison of clinical outcomes following vitrified warmed day 5/6 blastocyst transfers using solid surface methodology with fresh blastocyst transfers. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6:59–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Sunkara SK, Siozos A, Bolton VG, Khalaf Y, Braude PR, El-Toukhy T. The influence of delayed blastocyst formation on the outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1906–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ferreux L, Bourdon M, Sallem A, Santulli P, Barraud-Lange V, Le Foll N, Maignien C, Chapron C, de Ziegler D, Wolf J-P, Pocate-Cheriet K. Live birth rate following frozen–thawed blastocyst transfer is higher with blastocysts expanded on day 5 than on day 6. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:390–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Liebermann J, Tucker M. Comparison of vitrification and conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Navarro L, García-Pascual C, Rubio C, Simon C. Non–invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies: an update. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44:817–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaye L, Will EA, Bartolucci A, Nulsen J, Benadiva C, Engmann L. Pregnancy rates for single embryo transfer (SET) of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts after cryopreservation by vitrification and slow freeze. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:913–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Viñals Gonzalez X, Odia R, Naja R, Serhal P, Saab W, Seshadri S, Ben-Nagi J. Euploid blastocysts implant irrespective of their morphology after NGS-(PGT-A) testing in advanced maternal age patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1623–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Rubino P, Tapia L, de Assin Ruiz, Alonso R, Mazmanian K, Guan L, Dearden L, Thiel A, Moon C, Kolb B, Norian JM, Nelson J, Wilcox J, Tan T. Trophectoderm biopsy protocols can affect clinical outcomes: time to focus on the blastocyst biopsy technique. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:981–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Practice Committees of the ASRM and SART. Role of assisted hatching in in vitro fertilization: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:348–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVIRMA Barcelona, 45, Carrer Mallorca, 08029, Barcelona, Spain

    Mireia Florensa, Anna Cladellas, Agustín Ballesteros & Marga Esbert

Authors
  1. Mireia Florensa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Cladellas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Agustín Ballesteros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marga Esbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MF conceived the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. AC and AB collected the data. ME was involved in conceiving the study and revising the manuscript. All authors approved the content and contributed to drafting and revising the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mireia Florensa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was approved by both the research board and the ethics committee of Clinical Research IVIRMA Valencia, Spain (1909-BCN-083-MF).

Employment

The authors have neither a present, nor a past, or an anticipated employment that may gain or lose financially or non-financially through the publication of this manuscript.

Data attestation statement

The subjects included in this study have not concomitantly been involved in other randomized trials. Data regarding any of the subjects in the study has not been previously published unless specified. Data will be made available to the editors of the journal for review or query upon request.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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 37 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

Florensa, M., Cladellas, A., Ballesteros, A. et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: predictive embryonic factors. J Assist Reprod Genet (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03061-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03061-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation