Towards the selection of embryos with the greatest implantation potential

References

• Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. 2011. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertility and Sterility 95:520–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Marjoribanks J, Farquhar C. 2019. Time‐lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 5:CD011320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babariya D. 2019. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (NI PGT-A). Reproductive BioMedicine Online 38:e10–e11.
   Google Scholar
• Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. 1988. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 332:459–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromer JG, Seli E. 2008. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 20:234–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CFL. 2013. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26:477–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai N, Gill P. 2019. Blastomere cleavage plane orientation and the tetrahedral formation are associated with increased probability of a good-quality blastocyst for cryopreservation or transfer: a time-lapse study. Fertility and Sterility 111:1159–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Harris D, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. 2009. Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertility and Sterility 91:2432–2436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feichtinger M, Vaccari E, Carli L, Wallner E, Mädel U, Figl K, et al. 2017. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening using array comparative genomic hybridization on spent culture media: a proof-of-concept pilot study. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 34:583–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Babariya D, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Wells D. 2017. Analysis of implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates following the transfer of mosaic diploid-aneuploid blastocysts. Human Genetics 136:805–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. 2014. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Molecular Human Reproduction 20:117–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fréour T, Dessolle L, Lammers J, Lattes S, Barrière P. 2013. Comparison of embryo morphokinetics after in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection in smoking and nonsmoking women. Fertility and Sterility 99:1944–1950.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. 1999. In-vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: infertility and genetics beyond. Carnforth (UK): Parthenon Press. p. 378–388.
   Google Scholar
• Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. 2012. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertility and Sterility 97:332–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkegaard K, Kesmodel US, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. 2013. Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Human Reproduction 28:2643–2651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroener LL, Ambartsumyan G, Pisarska MD, Briton-Jones C, Surrey M, Hill D. 2015. Increased blastomere number in cleavage-stage embryos is associated with higher aneuploidy. Fertility and Sterility 103:694–698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznyetsov V, Madjunkova S, Antes R, Abramov R, Motamedi G, Ibarrientos Z, Librach CL. 2017. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening of human blastocysts. Fertility and Sterility 108:e277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. 2008. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 17:385–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Munné S, Ferraretti AP. 1998. Incidence of chromosomal abnormalities from a morphologically normal cohort of embryos in poor-prognosis patients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 15:297–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar G, Majumdar A, Verma IC, Upadhyaya KC. 2017. Relationship between morphology, euploidy and implantation potential of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences 10:49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manna C, Nanni L, Lumini A, Pappalardo S. 2013. Artificial intelligence techniques for embryo and oocyte classification. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26:42–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsøe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohí J. 2011. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Human Reproduction 26:2658–2671.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. 2012. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertility and Sterility 98:1481–1489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montag M, Liebenthron J, Köster M. 2011. Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development? Placenta 32:S252–S256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S. 2006. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 12:234–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, et al. 2017. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertility and Sterility 108:62–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Cohen J. 1998. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Human Reproduction Update 4:842–855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. 2019. 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. Fertility and Sterility 112:1071–1079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J. 1993. Fertilization and early embryology: diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Human Reproduction 8:2185–2191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz M, Cruz M, Humaidan P, Garrido N, Pérez-Cano I, Meseguer M. 2013. The type of GnRH analogue used during controlled ovarian stimulation influences early embryo developmental kinetics: a time-lapse study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 168:167–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasiri N, Eftekhari-Yazdi P. 2015. An overview of the available methods for morphological scoring of pre-implantation embryos in in vitro fertilization. Cell Journal 16:392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racowsky C, Combelles CM, Nureddin A, Pan Y, Finn A, Miles L, et al. 2003. Day 3 and day 5 morphological predictors of embryo viability. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 6:323–331.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, Romano S, Maggiulli R, Albricci L, et al. 2015. No evidence of association between blastocyst aneuploidy and morphokinetic assessment in a selected population of poor-prognosis patients: a longitudinal cohort study. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 30:57–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, et al. 2017. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertility and Sterility 107:1122–1129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubio I, Kuhlmann R, Agerholm I, Kirk J, Herrero J, Escribá MJ, et al. 2012. Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. Fertility and Sterility 98:1458–1463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RT, Jr., Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. 2012. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertility and Sterility 97:870–875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RT, Jr., Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. 2013. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 100:697–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh S, Hobeika E, Knochenhauer ES, Traub ML. 2019. Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 36:621–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siristatidis C, Vogiatzi P, Pouliakis A, Trivella M, Papantoniou N, Bettocchi S. 2016. Predicting IVF outcome: a proposed web-based system using artificial intelligence. In Vivo 30:507–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Ruberti A, Cotroneo E, et al. 2018. Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments. Fertility and Sterility 109:77–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stensen MH, Tanbo T, Storeng R, Byholm T, Fèdorcsak P. 2010. Routine morphological scoring systems in assisted reproduction treatment fail to reflect age-related impairment of oocyte and embryo quality. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 21:118–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigliani S, Anserini P, Venturini PL, Scaruffi P. 2013. Mitochondrial DNA content in embryo culture medium is significantly associated with human embryo fragmentation. Human Reproduction 28:2652–2660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valeriy K, Svetlana M, Ran A, Rina A, Gelareh M, Zenon I, et al. 2019. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (NIPGT-A). Reproductive BioMedicine Online 38:e41–e42.
   Google Scholar
• Van Montfoort AP, Dumoulin JC, Kester AD, Evers JL. 2004. Early cleavage is a valuable addition to existing embryo selection parameters: a study using single embryo transfers. Human Reproduction 19:2103–2108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vera-Rodriguez M, Diez-Juan A, Jimenez-Almazan J, Martinez S, Navarro R, Peinado V, et al. 2018. Origin and composition of cell-free DNA in spent medium from human embryo culture during preimplantation development. Human Reproduction 33:745–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. 2014. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 29:729–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar