Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos
- 87 Downloads
In vitro fertilization with trophectoderm embryo biopsy and pre-implantation genetic screening with comprehensive chromosomal screening (PGS-CCS) for aneuploidy is becoming increasingly more popular. Embryos are cryopreserved and implanted in a subsequent frozen thawed embryo transfer cycle (FET). No studies have investigated differences in pregnancy outcomes by timing of trophectoderm biopsy relative to stages of blastocyst development.
Retrospective study of all patients (n = 363) at a single IVF center between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016 undergoing single embryo transfer with PGS-CCS where embryos were cryopreserved with subsequent FET. Embryo expansion and grading was assessed both at the time of biopsy and transfer. Pregnancy rates were analyzed by embryo expansion and embryo grading.
Implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates improved significantly with increased embryo expansion at the time of embryo biopsy (P < 0.001). Pregnancy loss decreased with increases in embryo expansion prior to biopsy (P < 0.001). Superior live birth rates with PGS-CCS were seen when embryos were hatching at the time of biopsy (p < 0.001). For fresh and frozen embryo transfers without PGS-CCS, embryo expansion did not affect pregnancy outcomes.
PGS-CCS significantly increases implantation and live birth rates only if embryos are hatching at the time of biopsy. The embryo biopsy itself on a non-hatching embryo significantly damages the embryo in ways which are not reflected in future embryo expansion. IVF labs should wait until embryos hatch before performing trophectoderm biopsy.
KeywordsIVF PGS Embryo biopsy Embryo expansion FET Complete chromosomal screening
In vitro fertilization
preimplantation genetic screening with complete chromosomal analysis
frozen thawed embryo transfer
elective single embryo transfer
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the Northwell Health IRB HS16-0380. The study did not require patient consent.
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 5.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 e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(6):1695–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lopes AS, Frederickx V, Van Kerkhoven G, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Survival, re-expansion and cell survival of human blastocysts following vitrification and warming using two vitrification systems. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(1):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0373-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Van Landuyt L, Van de Velde H, De Vos A, Haentjens P, Blockeel C, Tournaye H, et al. Influence of cell loss after vitrification or slow-freezing on further in vitro development and implantation of human day 3 embryos. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(11):2943–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):723–30 e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Karacan M, Erdem E, Usta A, Arvas A, Cebi Z, Camlibel T. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering with concomitant administration of low doses of human chorionic gonadotropin or a freeze-all strategy in high responders. Saudi Med J. 2017;38(6):586–91. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.6.17717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Endo T, Honnma H, Hayashi T, Chida M, Yamazaki K, Kitajima Y, et al. Continuation of GnRH agonist administration for 1 week, after hCG injection, prevents ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following elective cryopreservation of all pronucleate embryos. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(10):2548–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Prapas Y, Ravanos K, Petousis S, Panagiotidis Y, Papatheodorou A, Margioula-Siarkou C, et al. GnRH antagonist administered twice the day before hCG trigger combined with a step-down protocol may prevent OHSS in IVF/ICSI antagonist cycles at risk for OHSS without affecting the reproductive outcomes: a prospective randomized control trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(11):1537–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1010-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Pontre JC, Ryan JP, Tan A, Hart RJ. The interval transfer of a frozen-thawed embryo is more successful than a fresh embryo transfer for women undergoing IVF with recurrent implantation failure after cleavage stage embryo biopsy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12798.
- 23.Wu K, Zhao H, Liu H, Li M, Ma S, Li C, et al. Day 3 ET, single blastocyst transfer (SBT) or frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET): which is preferable for high responder patients in IVF/ICSI cycles? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(3):275–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0156-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Zhou F, Lin XN, Tong XM, Li C, Liu L, Jin XY, et al. A frozen-thawed embryo transfer program improves the embryo utilization rate. Chin Med J. 2009;122(17):1974–8.Google Scholar
- 26.Roy TK, Bradley CK, Bowman MC, McArthur SJ. Single-embryo transfer of vitrified-warmed blastocysts yields equivalent live-birth rates and improved neonatal outcomes compared with fresh transfers. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1294–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Maheshwari A, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the human fertilisation and embryology authority anonymized dataset. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(7):1703–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Sun L, Chen ZH, Yin MN, Deng Y. Pregnancy and obstetric outcomes of fresh embryo transfer versus frozen-thawed embryo transfer in women below 35 years of age. Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University. 2017;37(7):929–32.Google Scholar
- 31.Litzky JF, Boulet SL, Esfandiari N, Zhang Y, Kissin DM, Theiler RN, et al. Effect of frozen/thawed embryo transfer on birthweight, macrosomia, and low birthweight rates in US singleton infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(4):433 e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Vidal M, Vellve K, Gonzalez-Comadran M, Robles A, Prat M, Torne M, et al. Perinatal outcomes in children born after fresh or frozen embryo transfer: a Catalan cohort study based on 14,262 newborns. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(4):940–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Sha T, Yin X, Cheng W, Massey IY. Pregnancy-related complications and perinatal outcomes resulting from transfer of cryopreserved versus fresh embryos in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(2):330–42 e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):697–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Bosch E, Mercader A, Vidal C, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1400–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Keltz MD, Vega M, Sirota I, Lederman M, Moshier EL, Gonzales E, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(10):1333–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0070-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar