Skip to main content
Log in

A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go?

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to undertake a critical appraisal of the available evidence for the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection in clinical IVF.

Methods

A literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of time-lapse embryo selection and/or the time-lapse incubation system on ongoing pregnancy rate. We then performed a systematic review and assessed the relative risks (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for ongoing pregnancy rates and the risk of bias of the eligible studies.

Results

We identified four eligible randomized studies, three of which investigated the effect of both time-lapse incubation system and selection on ongoing pregnancy rate; the pooled result revealed a benefit of this intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.20; 95 % CI 1.05–1.37). However, the evidence was judged to be of low quality due to study limitations; a beneficial effect was observed in only one study deemed to be at high risk of bias. The single study assessing the effect of only the time-lapse incubation system revealed a non-significant negative effect (RR 0.71; 95 % CI 0.49–1.03).

Conclusions

The findings from this systematic review of the current evidence do not support routine use of time-lapse technology in clinical IVF. We therefore believe that the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection should remain experimental and that couples should not be subject to a surcharge for having their embryos cultured in a time-lapse imaging system. Future studies evaluating this technology in well-designed trials should be performed.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chronopoulou E, Harper JC. IVF culture media: past, present and future. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21:39–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:667–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meldrum DR. Introduction: nongenetic markers of oocyte and embryo competence. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:301–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dale B, Menezo Y, Coppola G. Trends, fads and ART! J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:489–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Massip A, Mulnard J. Time-lapse cinematographic analysis of hatching of normal and frozen-thawed cow blastocysts. J Reprod Fertil. 1980;58:475–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Massip A, Mulnard J, Vanderzwalmen P, Hanzen C, Ectors F. The behaviour of cow blastocyst in vitro: cinematographic and morphometric analysis. J Anat. 1982;134:399–405.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Finn A, Scott L, O’Leary T, Davies D, Hill J. Sequential embryo scoring as a predictor of aneuploidy in poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:381–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Armstrong S, Vail A, Mastenbroek S, Jordan V, Farquhar C. Time-lapse in the IVF-lab: how should we assess potential benefit? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:3–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:617–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kirkegaard K, Kesmodel US, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2643–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Milewski R, Kuc P, Kuczynska A, Stankiewicz B, Lukaszuk K, Kuczynski W. A predictive model for blastocyst formation based on morphokinetic parameters in time-lapse monitoring of embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:571–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chavez SL, Loewke KE, Han J, Moussavi F, Colls P, Munne S, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1251. doi:10.1038/ncomms2249.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cetinkaya M, Pirkevi C, Yelke H, Colakoglu YK, Atayurt Z, Kahraman S. Relative kinetic expressions defining cleavage synchronicity are better predictors of blastocyst formation and quality than absolute time points. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:27–35.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chawla M, Fakih M, Shunnar A, Bayram A, Hellani A, Perumal V, et al. Morphokinetic analysis of cleavage stage embryos and its relationship to aneuploidy in a retrospective time-lapse imaging study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:69–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paternot G, Debrock S, De Neubourg D, D’Hooghe TM, Spiessens C. Semi-automated morphometric analysis of human embryos can reveal correlations between total embryo volume and clinical pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:627–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:729–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kirkegaard K, Campbell A, Agerholm I, Bentin-Ley U, Gabrielsen A, Kirk J, et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:156–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bontekoe S, Mantikou E, van Wely M, Seshadri S, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Low oxygen concentrations for embryo culture in assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7, CD008950.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De los Santos MJ, Gamiz P, Albert C, Galan A, Viloria T, Perez S, et al. Reduced oxygen tension improves embryo quality but not clinical pregnancy rates: a randomized clinical study into ovum donation cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:402–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:738–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kahraman S, Cetinkaya M, Pirkevi C, Yelke H, Kumtepe Y. Comparison of blastocyst development and cycle outcome in patients with eSET using either conventional or time lapse incubators. A prospective study of good prognosis patients. J Reprod Stem Cell Biotechnol. 2013;3:55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kovacs P, Matyas S, Forgacs V, Sajgo A, Rarosi F, Pribenszky C. Time-lapse embryo selection for single blastocyst transfer—results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:S90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1287–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park H, Bergh C, Selleskog U, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Lundin K. No benefit of culturing embryos in a closed system compared with a conventional incubator in terms of number of good quality embryos: results from an RCT. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:268–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Athayde Wirka K, Chen AA, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, Behr B, et al. Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1637–48. e1631–1635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Freour T, Le Fleuter N, Lammers J, Splingart C, Reignier A, Barriere P. External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:917–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7, CD002118.

    PubMed  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Polanski LT, Coelho Neto MA, Nastri CO, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Time-lapse embryo imaging for improving reproductive outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44:394–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Albertini DF. When looks are deceiving—the challenge facing embryo quality prognosticators. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:249–50.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Declaration of authors’ roles

All three authors participated equally in the content, editing, and finalizing of the manuscript.

Support

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Racowsky.

Additional information

Capsule A critical appraisal of the current evidence for using time-lapse imaging in clinical IVF.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Racowsky, C., Kovacs, P. & Martins, W.P. A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go?. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 1025–1030 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0510-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0510-6

Keywords

Navigation