Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:33:02.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Individualized Embryo Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2021

By
Irene Hervás ,
Lucía Alegre ,
Lorena Bori  and
Marcos Meseguer
Edited by
Human M. Fatemi  and
Barbara Lawrenz
Human M. Fatemi
Affiliation:
IVI Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Barbara Lawrenz
Affiliation:
IVI Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Get access

Summary

It is 40 years since the birth of the first baby conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF). From then on, remarkable progress has been made in the management of infertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART). The improvements in clinical practice, such as ovarian stimulation protocols, embryo culture conditions, and vitrification protocols, have led to improved success rates globally.

Type
Chapter
Information
Individualized In-Vitro Fertilization
Delivering Precision Fertility Treatment
 , pp. 96 - 111
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Am, QR, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology: summary of findings for the main comparison. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;30:CD002118.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod Biomed Online 2016;32:142–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;110:1246–1252.Google Scholar
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;26:1270–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capalbo, A, Rienzi, L, Cimadomo, D, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1173–1181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutting, R. Single embryo transfer for all. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2018;53:30–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandian, Z, Marjoribanks, J, Ozturk, O, et al. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection: summary of a Cochrane review. Fertil Steril 2014;102:345–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, D, Schaefer, GO, Tremellen, K, et al. Double trouble: should double embryo transfer be banned? Theor Med Bioeth 2015;36:121–139.Google Scholar
Harbottle, S, Hughes, C, Cutting, R, et al. Elective single embryo transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines. Hum Fertil 2015;18:165–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Geyter, C, Calhaz-Jorge, C, Kupka, MS, et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013;99:44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigalos, G, Triantafyllidou, O, Vlahos, NF. Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;294:1117–1124.Google Scholar
Scott, KL, Hong, KH, Scott, RT Jr. Selecting the optimal time to perform biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril 2013;100:608–614.Google Scholar
Dahdouh, EM, Sc, M, Balayla, J, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2015;104:1503–1512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubaldi, FM, Capalbo, A, Colamaria, S, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod 2015;30:2097–2106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, E, Illingworth, P, Wilton, L, et al. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 2015;30:473–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Rienzi, L, Navarro-Sánchez, L, et al. Embryonic cell-free DNA versus trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy testing: concordance rate and clinical implications. Fertil Steril 2019;112:510–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castelló, D, Motato, Y, Basile, N, et al. How much have we learned from time-lapse in clinical IVF? Mol Hum Reprod 2016;22:719–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Gallego, R, Remohí, J, Meseguer, M. Time-lapse imaging: the state of the art. Biol Reprod 2019;101:1146–1154.Google Scholar
Kirkegaard, K, Ahlström, A, Ingerslev, HJ, et al. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertil Steril 2015;103:323–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khosravi, P, Kazemi, E, Zhan, Q, et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. npj Digit Med 2019;2:21. doi:10.1038/s41746-019–0096-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayram, A, De Munck, N, Elkhatib, I, et al. Cleavage stage mitochondrial DNA is correlated with preimplantation human embryo development and ploidy status. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019;36:1847–1854.Google Scholar
Fragouli, E, Spath, K, Alfarawati, S, et al. Altered Levels of Mitochondrial DNA Are Associated with Female Age, Aneuploidy, and Provide an Independent Measure of Embryonic Implantation Potential. PLoS Genet 2015;11:E1005241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cecchino, GN, García-Velasco, JA. Mitochondrial DNA copy number as a predictor of embryo viability. Fertil Steril 2019;111:205–211.Google Scholar
Diez-Juan, A, Rubio, C, Marin, C, et al. DNA content as a viability score in human euploid embryos: less is better. Fertil Steril 2015;104:534–541.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×