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-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:17:33.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 9 - Time-Lapse Technology

Theoretical and Practical Aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2021

By
Kirstine Kirkegaard  and
Thomas Freour
Edited by
Kersti Lundin  and
Aisling Ahlström
Kersti Lundin
Affiliation:
Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg
Aisling Ahlström
Affiliation:
Livio Fertility Center, Gothenburg
Get access

Summary

Optimal culture conditions and reliable embryo selection are two fundamental laboratory aspects of successful IVF treatment, with the overall aim being to obtain a healthy singleton pregnancy in the shortest possible time. This chapter will cover the use of time-lapse technology (TLT) for continuous morphological evaluation of the embryo within an undisturbed culture. The first part will address the evidence for improving clinical outcome and the development of selection models; the second part will cover the practical aspects of the use and implementation of TLT.

Type
Chapter
Information
Manual of Embryo Culture in Human Assisted Reproduction , pp. 75 - 83
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

Adamson, GD, Abusief, ME, Palao, L, Witmer, J, Palao, LM, Gvakharia, M. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse–enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fert Ster. 2016;105:369–375. e366.Google Scholar
Aguilar, J, Motato, Y, Escriba, MJ, Ojeda, M, Munoz, E, Meseguer, M. The human first cell cycle: impact on implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28:475–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athayde Wirka, K, Chen, AA, Conaghan, J, et al. Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fert Ster. 2014;101: 1637–1648. e5.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019(5):Cd011320.Google Scholar
Azzarello, A, Hoest, T, Mikkelsen, AL. 2012. The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Human Reprod. 2012;27: 2649–2657.Google Scholar
Basile, N, Vime, P, Florensa, M, et al. 2015. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Human Reprod. 30:276–283.Google Scholar
Ciray, HN, Campbell, A, Agerholm, IE, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Human Reprod. 2014;29:2650–2660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE Working group on Time-Lapse Technology. Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology. Human Reprod Open. 2020(2); 2020: hoaa008.Google Scholar
Ferrick, L, Lee, YSL, Gardner, DK. Reducing time to pregnancy and facilitating the birth of healthy children through functional analysis of embryo physiology. Biol Reprod. 2019;101:1124–1139.Google Scholar
Fishel, S, Campbell, A, Montgomery, S, et al. Time-lapse imaging algorithms rank human preimplantation embryos according to the probability of live birth. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:304–313.Google Scholar
Goodman, LR, Goldberg, J, Falcone, T, Austin, C, Desai, N. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:275–285.e210.Google Scholar
Kaser, DJ, Bormann, CL, Missmer, SA, Farland, LV, Ginsburg, ES, Racowsky, C. A pilot randomized controlled trial of Day 3 single embryo transfer with adjunctive time-lapse selection versus Day 5 single embryo transfer with or without adjunctive time-lapse selection. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1598–1603.Google Scholar
Kovacic, B, Taborin, M, Vlaisavljevic, V. Artificial blastocoel collapse of human blastocysts before vitrification and its effect on re-expansion after warming – a prospective observational study using time-lapse microscopy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacs, P, Lieman, HJ. Which embryo selection method should be offered to the patients? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36:603–605.Google Scholar
Li, R, Pedersen, KS, Liu, Y, et al. Effect of red light on the development and quality of mammalian embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:795–801.Google Scholar
Liu, Y, Chapple, V, Feenan, K, Roberts, P, Matson, P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fert Ster. 2016;105:656–662 e651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez, M, Santaló, J, Rodríguez, A, Vassena, R. High reliability of morphokinetic annotations among embryologists. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;3:hoy009.Google Scholar
Martinez-Granados, L, Serrano, M, Gonzalez-Utor, A, et al. Inter-laboratory agreement on embryo classification and clinical decision: Conventional morphological assessment vs. time lapse. PloS One. 2017;12:e0183328.Google Scholar
Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A, Hilligsoe, KM, Ramsing, NB, Remohi, J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26: 2658–2671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, BM, Boel, M, Montag, M, Gardner, DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Hum Reprod. 2016;31: 2231–2244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pribenszky, C, Nilselid, AM, Montag, M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:511–520.Google Scholar
Reignier, A, Lammers, J, Barriere, P, Freour, T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:380–387.Google Scholar
Rocafort, E, Enciso, M, Leza, A, Sarasa, J, Aizpurua, J. Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1573–1583.Google Scholar
Rubio, I, Kuhlmann, R, Agerholm, I, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1458–1463.Google Scholar
Sundvall, L, Ingerslev, HJ, Breth Knudsen, U, Kirkegaard, K. Inter- and intra-observer variability of time-lapse annotations. Human Reprod. 2013;28:3215–3221.Google Scholar
Tran, D, Cooke, S, Illingworth, PJ, Gardner, DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1011–1018.Google Scholar
Treff, NR, Zimmerman, RS. Advances in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease and aneuploidy. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2017;18:189–200.Google Scholar
VerMilyea, MD, Tan, L, Anthony, JT, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:729–736Google Scholar
Yang, L, Cai, S, Zhang, S, et al. Single embryo transfer by Day 3 time-lapse selection versus Day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:869–876.Google Scholar
Zaninovic, N, Irani, M, Meseguer, M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:722–729.Google Scholar
Zhan, Q, Ye, Z, Clarke, R, Rosenwaks, Z, Zaninovic, N. Direct unequal cleavages: embryo developmental competence, genetic constitution and clinical outcome. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0166398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×