Advertisement

Discarding IVF embryos: reporting on global practices

  • M. SimopoulouEmail author
  • K. Sfakianoudis
  • P. Giannelou
  • A. Rapani
  • E. Maziotis
  • P. Tsioulou
  • S. Grigoriadis
  • E. Simopoulos
  • D. Mantas
  • M. Lambropoulou
  • M. Koutsilieris
  • K. Pantos
  • J. C. Harper
Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To provide a global scale report on a representative sample of the clinical embryology community depicting the practice of discarding supernumerary IVF embryos.

Methods

A web-based questionnaire titled “Anonymous questionnaire on embryo disposal practices” was designed in order to ensure anonymous participation of practicing clinical embryologists around the world.

Results

During a data collection period of 8 months, 703 filled-in questionnaires from 65 countries were acquired. According to the data acquired, the majority of practitioners, dispose of embryos by placing them directly in a trash can strictly dedicated for embryo disposal for both fresh and frozen cycles (39% and 36.7% respectively). Moreover, 66.4% of practitioners discard the embryos separately—case by case—at different time points during the day. Over half of embryologists (54%) wait until day 6 to discard the surplus embryos, while 65.5% do not implement a specially allocated incubator space as a designated waiting area prior to disposal. The majority of 63.1% reported that this is a witnessed procedure. The vast majority of embryologists (93%) do not employ different protocols for different groups of patients. Nonetheless, 17.8% reported the request to perform a ceremony for these embryos. Assessing the embryologists’ perspective, 59.5% of participants stated that the embryology practice would benefit from a universally accepted and practiced protocol.

Conclusion(s)

This study uniquely provides insight into global embryo disposal practices and trends. Results highlight the divergence between reported practices, while indicating the significance on standardization of practice, with embryologists acknowledging the need for a universally accepted protocol implementation.

Keywords

Surplus embryos Embryo disposal practices IVF 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very appreciative to all embryologists, clinicians, and scientists at the Department of Physiology of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, at the Centre for Human Reproduction at Genesis Hospital, and at the Assisted Conception Unit of the 2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Aretaieion Hospital. The authors also thank Dr. Gerry Celia Laboratory Director and Assistant Professor at Jones Institute at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk for sharing the survey in order to reach embryologists on a global scale. Finally, we acknowledge the input of all practitioners taking the time to contribute to our survey by sharing their protocols and practices.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10815_2019_1592_MOESM1_ESM.docx (909 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 909 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Vaughan DA, Leung A, Resetkova N, Ruthazer R, Penzias AS, Sakkas D, et al. How many oocytes are optimal to achieve multiple live births with one stimulation cycle? The one-and-done approach. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Jan 6];107:397-404.e3. Available from: https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(16)62960-6/abstract PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gardner DK, Balaban B. Assessment of human embryo development using morphological criteria in an era of time-lapse, algorithms and “OMICS”: is looking good still important? Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:704–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Antoniou N, Maziotis E, Rapani A, Bakas P, et al. Making IVF more effective through the evolution of prediction models: is prognosis the missing piece of the puzzle? Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2018;64:305–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Maziotis E, Antoniou N, Rapani A, Anifandis G, et al. Are computational applications the “crystal ball” in the IVF laboratory? The evolution from mathematics to artificial intelligence. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1545–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siristatidis C, Vogiatzi P, Pouliakis A, Trivella M, Papantoniou N, Bettocchi S. Predicting IVF outcome: a proposed web-based system using artificial intelligence. Vivo Athens Greece. 2016;30:507–12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Voorhis B, Mejia RB. Single-embryo transfer point-it is the way forward. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goedeke S, Daniels K, Thorpe M, du Preez E. The fate of unused embryos: discourses, action possibilities, and subject positions. Qual Health Res. 2017;27:1529–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Melamed RMM, Bonetti TCDS, Braga DPDAF, Madaschi C, Iaconelli A, Borges E. Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: parents’ choices. Hum Fertil Camb Engl. 2009;12:185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruno C, Dudkiewicz-Sibony C, Berthaut I, Weil E, Brunet L, Fortier C, et al. Survey of 243 ART patients having made a final disposition decision about their surplus cryopreserved embryos: the crucial role of symbolic embryo representation. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2016;31:1508–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svanberg AS, Boivin J, Hjelmstedt A, Bergh LA, Collins A, Bergh T. The impact of frozen embryos on emotional reactions during in vitro fertilization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:1110–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergues U, Sèle B. What fate lies in store for the cryopreserved human embryos in France? The French law leaves uncertainties. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 1997;12:207–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moutel G, Gregg E, Meningaud JP, Hervé C. Developments in the storage of embryos in France and the limitations of the laws of bioethics. Analysis of procedures in 17 storage centres and the destiny of stored embryos. Med Law. 2002;21:587–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bangsbøll S, Pinborg A, Yding Andersen C, Nyboe AA. Patients’ attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2004;19:2415–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newton CR, Fisher J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Hughes L, Isacsson D. Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2007;22:3124–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoffman DI, Zellman GL, Fair CC, Mayer JF, Zeitz JG, Gibbons WE, et al. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1063–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alvarez-Díaz JA. Embryo donation in developing countries. Gac Med Mex. 2010;146:228–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sivaraman MAF. Using surplus embryos and research embryos in stem cell research: ethical viewpoints of Buddhist, Hindu and Catholic leaders in Malaysia on the permissibility of research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24:129–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dondorp W, De Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2019 Feb 20];28:1448–54. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/28/6/1448/606259 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klock SC. Embryo disposition: the forgotten “child” of in vitro fertilization. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2004;49:19–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C, Butler A, MacDougall K. Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:431–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Lacey S. Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into patients’ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2007;22:1751–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Gerris J, Van de Velde A, De Lissnyder E, et al. Infertility patients’ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2009;24:896–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McMahon CA, Saunders DM. Attitudes of couples with stored frozen embryos toward conditional embryo donation. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:140–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laruelle C, Englert Y. Psychological study of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer participants’ attitudes toward the destiny of their supernumerary embryos. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1047–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Darlington N, Matson P. The fate of cryopreserved human embryos approaching their legal limit of storage within a West Australian in-vitro fertilization clinic. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 1999;14:2343–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hammarberg K, Tinney L. Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: a survey of couples’ decisions and the factors influencing their choice. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:86–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klock SC, Sheinin S, Kazer RR. The disposition of unused frozen embryos. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:69–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fuscaldo G, Russell S, Gillam L. How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients’ views. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2007;22:3129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zarin I. English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN : a multilingual model. J Asiat. 2016;13:391–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gurmankin A, Sisti D, Caplan A. Embryo disposal practices in IVF clinics in the United States. Cent Bioeth Pap [Internet]. 2004; Available from: https://repository.upenn.edu/bioethics_papers/7
  31. 31.
    Tonkens R. The moral unacceptability of abandoning human embryos. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2016;34:52–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hursthouse R. Immunisation recall. N Z Med J. 1987;100:569.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Douglas T, Savulescu J. Destroying unwanted embryos in research. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research. EMBO Rep. 2009;10:307–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miklavcic JJ, Flaman P. Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus. Linacre Q [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 27];84:130–44. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2017.1299896 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mallia P. Problems faced with legislating for IVF technology in a Roman Catholic country. Med Health Care Philos. 2010;13:77–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mallia P. Developments in IVF legislation in a Catholic country. Med Health Care Philos. 2013;16:385–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cavaliere G. A 14-day limit for bioethics: the debate over human embryo research. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Appleby JB, Bredenoord AL. Should the 14-day rule for embryo research become the 28-day rule? EMBO Mol Med. 2018;10.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chan S. How and why to replace the 14-day rule. Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2018;4:228–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Svanberg AS, Boivin J, Bergh T. Factors influencing the decision to use or discard cryopreserved embryos. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:849–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McMahon CA, Gibson F, Leslie G, Cohen J, Tennant C. Parents of 5-year-old in vitro fertilization children: psychological adjustment, parenting stress, and the influence of subsequent in vitro fertilization treatment. J Fam Psychol JFP J Div Fam Psychol Am Psychol Assoc Div. 43, 2003(17):361–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parry S. (Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2006;62:2349–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Williams JA, Meltzer D, Arora V, Chung G, Curlin FA. Attention to inpatients’ religious and spiritual concerns: predictors and association with patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2019 Jun 3];26:1265–71. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208457/ PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Millbank J. Reflecting the ‘human nature’ of IVF embryos: disappearing women in ethics, law, and fertility practice. J Law Biosci [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Jun 3];4:70–93. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/4/1/70/2566734

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Simopoulou
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • K. Sfakianoudis
    • 3
  • P. Giannelou
    • 1
    • 3
  • A. Rapani
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Maziotis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • P. Tsioulou
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Grigoriadis
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Simopoulos
    • 4
  • D. Mantas
    • 5
  • M. Lambropoulou
    • 4
  • M. Koutsilieris
    • 1
  • K. Pantos
    • 3
  • J. C. Harper
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Physiology, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Assisted Conception Unit, 2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Centre for Human ReproductionGenesis Athens ClinicAthensGreece
  4. 4.Democritus University of ThraceAlexandroupolisGreece
  5. 5.Conceive - The Gynecology CenterDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  6. 6.Reproductive Science Group, Institute for Women’s HealthUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations