Time-lapse technology for embryo culture and selection

References

• ESHRE Guideline Group on Good Practice in IVF Labs; De los Santos MJ, Apter S, Coticchio G, Debrock S, Lundin K, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Hum Reprod. 2016;31:685–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine, ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine, ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22:632–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujiwara M, Takahashi K, Izuno M, Duan YR, Kazono M, Kimura F, et al. Effect of micro-environment maintenance on embryo culture after in-vitro fertilization: comparison of top-load mini incubator and conventional front-load incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:5–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain JE, Carrell D, Cobo A, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Smith GD. Optimizing the culture environment and embryo manipulation to help maintain embryo developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:571–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:2–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley RL, Gardner DK. In vitro culture of individual mouse preimplantation embryos: the role of embryo density, microwells, oxygen, timing and conditioned media. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34:441–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, Kirk J, Herrero J, Escriba MJ, et al. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1458–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Chapple V, Roberts P, Matson P. Prevalence, consequence, and significance of reverse cleavage by human embryos viewed with the use of the Embryoscope time-lapse video system. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1295–300.e1292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper J, Magli MC, Lundin K, Barratt CL, Brison D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? Hum Reprod. 2012;27:303–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provoost V, Tilleman K, D’Angelo A, De Sutter P, de Wert G, Nelen W, et al. Beyond the dichotomy: a tool for distinguishing between experimental, innovative and established treatment. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:413–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update. 1997;3:367–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner DK. Changes in requirements and utilization of nutrients during mammalian preimplantation embryo development and their significance in embryo culture. Theriogenology 1998;49:83–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pool TB. Recent advances in the production of viable human embryos in vitro. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;4:294–302.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biggers JD, Summers MC. Choosing a culture medium: making informed choices. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:473–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machtinger R, Racowsky C. Culture systems: single step. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;912:199–209.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hardarson T, Bungum M, Conaghan J, Meintjes M, Chantilis SJ, Molnar L, et al. Noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial comparing embryo development using media developed for sequential or undisturbed culture in a time-lapse setup. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1452–9.e1451–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sfontouris IA, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Viana IG, Navarro PA, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1261–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieamant F, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Comar V, Mattila M, Vagnini LD, et al. Single versus sequential culture medium: which is better at improving ongoing pregnancy rates? A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21:240–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang XJ, Yang YZ, Min LH, Lv Q, Bai P, Li XJ, et al. Successful pregnancy following the transfer of vitrified blastocyst which developed from poor quality embryos on day 3. Iran J Reprod Med. 2011;9:203–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone BA, March CM, Ringler GE, Baek KJ, Marrs RP. Casting for determinants of blastocyst yield and of rates of implantation and of pregnancy after blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1055–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Wang Y, Shi J. Do day-3 embryo grade predict day-5 blastocyst transfer outcomes in patients with good prognosis? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35:36–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakahara T, Iwase A, Goto M, Harata T, Suzuki M, Ienaga M, et al. Evaluation of the safety of time-lapse observations for human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:93–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, Pedersen KS, Martinez M, Perez-Cano I, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28:569–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Grondahl ML, Kesmodel US, Ingerslev HJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:565–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG. The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:117–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser DS, Fourie FR. The applicability of the cumulative embryo score system for embryo selection and quality control in an in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:1719–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J, et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2427–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De ND, Laureys I, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. Calculating the implantation potential of day 3 embryos in women younger than 38 years of age: a new model. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:326–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1970–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundin K, Bergh C, Hardarson T. Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2652–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Montfoort AP, Dumoulin JC, Kester AD, Evers JL. Early cleavage is a valuable addition to existing embryo selection parameters: a study using single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2103–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurin A, Hardarson T, Hausken J, Jablonowska B, Lundin K, Pinborg A, et al. Predictors of ongoing implantation in IVF in a good prognosis group of patients. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1876–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, Garello C, Gennarelli G, Revelli A, et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:548–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhenman A, Berglund L, Brodin T, Olovsson M, Milton K, Hadziosmanovic N, et al. Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:28–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racowsky C, Stern JE, Gibbons WE, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, Biggers JD. National collection of embryo morphology data into Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System: associations among day 3 cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry, and live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1985–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3289–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Prediction of live birth in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer cycles by pre-freeze and post-thaw morphology. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1199–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Abbeel E, Balaban B, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Cuesta MJ, Klein BM, et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:353–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundin K, Ahlstrom A. Quality control and standardization of embryo morphology scoring and viability markers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:459–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2650–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:1115–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;26:2658–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:140–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer YG, Kofinas JD, Melzer K, Noyes N, McCaffrey C, Buldo-Licciardi J, et al. Assessing morphokinetic parameters via time lapse microscopy (TLM) to predict euploidy: are aneuploidy risk classification models universal? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1231–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;31:2231–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, Aparicio Ruiz B, Garcia Velasco JA, Remohi J, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:276–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:412–9. e415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;105:275–85.e210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:656–62.e651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milewski R, Ajduk A. Time-lapse imaging of cleavage divisions in embryo quality assessment. Reproduction. 2017;154:R37–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.e1285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Zhang J, Salem SA, Liu X, Kuang Y, Salem RD, et al. Selection of competent blastocysts for transfer by combining time-lapse monitoring and array CGH testing for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic screening: a prospective study with sibling oocytes. BMC Med Genomics. 2014;7:38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciray HN, Aksoy T, Goktas C, Ozturk B, Bahceci M. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media–a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:891–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basile N, Morbeck D, Garcia-Velasco J, Bronet F, Meseguer M. Type of culture media does not affect embryo kinetics: a time-lapse analysis of sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:634–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrie A, Homburg R, McDowell G, Brown J, Kingsland C, Troup S. Examining the efficacy of six published time-lapse imaging embryo selection algorithms to predict implantation to demonstrate the need for the development of specific, in-house morphokinetic selection algorithms. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:613–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlstrom A, Park H, Bergh C, Selleskog U, Lundin K. Conventional morphology performs better than morphokinetics for prediction of live birth after day 2 transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33:61–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reignier A, Lammers J, Barriere P, Freour T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:380–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.e1631–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundvall L, Ingerslev HJ, Breth Knudsen U, Kirkegaard K. Inter- and intra-observer variability of time-lapse annotations. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:3215–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Granados L, Serrano M, Gonzalez-Utor A, Ortiz N, Badajoz V, Lopez-Regalado ML, et al. Reliability and agreement on embryo assessment: 5 years of an external quality control programme. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:259–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1071–9.e1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basile N, Nogales M. d C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:699–704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, Romano S, Maggiulli R, Albricci L, et al. No evidence of association between blastocyst aneuploidy and morphokinetic assessment in a selected population of poor-prognosis patients: a longitudinal cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:57–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai N, Goldberg JM, Austin C, Falcone T. Are cleavage anomalies, multinucleation, or specific cell cycle kinetics observed with time-lapse imaging predictive of embryo developmental capacity or ploidy?. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:665–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosravi P, Kazemi E, Zhan Q, Malmsten JE, Toschi M, Zisimopoulos P, et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;34:1011–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Feenan K, Chapple V, Matson P. Assessing efficacy of day 3 embryo time-lapse algorithms retrospectively: impacts of dataset type and confounding factors. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019;22:182–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teh WT, McBain J, Rogers P. What is the contribution of embryo-endometrial asynchrony to implantation failure? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1419–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones GM, Trounson AO, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Factors affecting the success of human blastocyst development and pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:1022–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racowsky C, Jackson KV, Cekleniak NA, Fox JH, Hornstein MD, Ginsburg ES. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:558–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;(7):CD002118.
   Google Scholar
• De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, Santos-Ribeiro S, Camus M, Van de Velde H, Tournaye H, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2442–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar