The relationship between good quality embryo rates and IVF outcomes/embryo transfer policies in extended embryo culture

References

• Ahlström A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. 2011. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Human Reproduction 26:3289–3296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. 2011. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 22:632–646.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baczkowski T, Kurzawa R, Glabowski W. 2004. Methods of embryo scoring in in vitro fertilization. Reproductive Biology 4:5–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barberet J, Bruno C, Valot E, Antunes-Nunes C, Jonval L, Chammas J, et al. 2019. Can novel early non-invasive biomarkers of embryo quality be identified with time-lapse imaging to predict live birth? Human Reproduction 34:1439–1449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolton VN, Wren ME, Parsons JH. 1991. Pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and transfer of human blastocysts. Fertility and Sterility 55:830–832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavazza T, Politi AZ, Aldag P, Baker C, Elder K, Blayney M, et al. 2020. Parental genome unification is highly erroneous in mammalian embryos. bioRxiv
   Google Scholar
• Chamayou S, Patrizio P, Storaci G, Tomaselli V, Alecci C, Ragolia C, et al. 2013. The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 30:703–710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir A, Köse M, Bozdag G, Sokmensüer LK, Sever A, Günalp S. 2015. Can combination of day 3 and day 5 embryo morphology be useful to predict pregnancy in in-vitro fertilization cycles? Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology 41:685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depa-Martynow M, Jedrzejczak P, Pawelczyk L. 2007. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo quality in in vitro fertilization program. Folia histochemica et cytobiologica 45 Suppl. 1:S85–S89.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman LR, Austin C, Goldberg J, Falcone T, et al. 2014. Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 12:54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, Polyzos NP. 2016. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Human Reproduction 31:370–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebner T, Tritscher K, Mayer RB, Oppelt P, Duba H-C, Maurer M, et al. 2016. Quantitative and qualitative trophectoderm grading allows for prediction of live birth and gender. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 33:49–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards RG, Hollands P. 1988. New advances in human embryology: implications of the preimplantation diagnosis of genetic disease. Human Reproduction 3:549–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. 2017. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 35:494–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feil D, Henshaw RC, Lane M. 2008. Day 4 embryo selection is equal to day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers. Human Reproduction 23:1505–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. 2001. The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Human Reproduction 16:1970–1975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamiz P, Rubio C, Jose de los Santos M, Mercader A, Simón C, Remohí J, Pellicer A. 2003. The effect of pronuclear morphology on early development and chromosomal abnormalities in cleavage-stage embryos. Human Reproduction 18:2413–2419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. 1999. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 11:307–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Fortini D, Grieco N. 2003. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertility and Sterility 80:341–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach J-L, Salzmann J, et al. 1995. Embryo score to predict implantation after in vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Human Reproduction 10:2427–2431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Blanchard M, Royere D. 2009. Top quality embryos at day 2: a prerequisite for single blastocyst transfer? An observational cohort study in women under 36. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 26:443–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlinka D, Kaľatová B, Uhrinová I, Dolinská S, Rutarová J, Rezáčová J, et al. 2012. Time-lapse cleavage rating predicts human embryo viability. Physiological Research 61:513–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latham KE, Schultz RM. 2001. Embryonic genome activation. Frontiers in Bioscience 6:D748–D759.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundin K, Ahlström A. 2015. Quality control and standardization of embryo morphology scoring and viability markers. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 31:459–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machtinger R, Racowsky C. 2013. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26:210–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. 2015. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Human Reproduction 30:2703–2707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia C, Racowsky C, et al. 2017. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 49:583–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, Casciani V, Scarselli F, et al. 2016. Correlation between aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluation and morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts: a consecutive case series study. Human Reproduction 31:2245–2254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motato Y, de los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohí J, Meseguer M, et al. 2016. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertility and Sterility 105:376–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. 1995. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertility and Sterility 64:382–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papanikolaou EG, D'haeseleer E, Verheyen G, Van de Velde H, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, et al. 2005. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study. Human Reproduction 20:3198–3203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racowsky C, Jackson KV, Cekleniak NA, Fox JH, Hornstein MD, Ginsburg ES, et al. 2000. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertility and Sterility 73:558–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhenman A, Berglund L, Brodin T, Olovsson M, Milton K, Hadziosmanovic N, et al. 2015. 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. Human Reproduction 30:28–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocha JC, Passalia F, Matos FD, Maserati MP, Alves MF, Almeida TGd, et al. 2016. Methods for assessing the quality of mammalian embryos: how far we are from the gold standard? JBRA Assisted Reproduction 20:150–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakkas D, Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Bianchi PG, Campana A. 1998. Early cleavage of human embryos to the two-cell stage after intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an indicator of embryo viability. Human Reproduction 13:182–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasikala N, Rajapriya A, Mahalakshmi S, Janani DM, Archana B, Parameaswari PJ, et al. 2015. Blastocyst culture depends on quality of embryos on day 3, not quantity. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 20:224–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. 2001. Blastocyst versus day 2 or 3 transfer. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine 19:259–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigalos GA, Triantafyllidou O, Vlahos NF. 2016. Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 294:1117–1124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoop D, Van Landuyt L, Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Verheyen G, Devroey P, et al. 2011. Should a single blastocyst transfer policy be a clinical decision or should it depend on the embryological evaluation on day 3? Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 9:60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesarik J, Greco E. 1999. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Human Reproduction 14:1318–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J. 1988. Early morphological signs of embryonic genome expression in human preimplantation development as revealed by quantitative electron microscopy. Developmental Biology 128:15–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Abbeel E, Balaban B, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Cuesta MJG, Klein BM, et al. 2013. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single blastocyst transfer. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 27:353–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meerssche M, Ryckaert G, et al. 1999. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Human Reproduction 14:2345–2349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. 2003. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Human Reproduction 18:1062–1069.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei Y, Huang B, Ren X, Jin L. 2020. High-quality cleavage embryo versus low-quality blastocyst in frozen-thawed cycles: comparison of clinical outcomes. Current Medical Science 40:968–972.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. 2017. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertility and Sterility 108:722–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu Q, Lin J, Gao H, Wang N, Wang B, Wang Y, et al. 2020. The association between embryo quality, number of transferred embryos and live birth rate after vitrified cleavage-stage embryos and blastocyst transfer. Frontiers in Physiology 11:930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN, et al. 1997. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Human Reproduction 12:1545–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar