5. Application of timelapse in embryo selection for preimplantation genetic biopsies
Main Article Content
Abstract
In order to select high-quality embryos for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) therefore reduce costs for patients, we conducted a prospective descriptive study on embryos cultured and selected for PGT based on embryo morphokinetics. Time-Lapse (TL) were employed for embryos monitoring. Embryos were cultured in the ES+ TL incubator until day 5–6. Embryos selected for biopsy were chosen using the KIDScore, based on full morphokinetic observation via TL and embryo evaluation using Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology integrated into the TL incubator. These embryos were biopsied and genetically analyzed to assess the correlation between embryo morphokinetics and preimplantation genetic test results. The results showed that the embryos selected for biopsy primarily had KIDScore values ranging from 5 to 9. Embryos selected via TL had a higher rate of normal genetic results and a lower rate of abnormalities compared to those selected by conventional methods. Embryos that divided early-from post-ICSI to the 5-cell stage-had a higher rate of normal genetic profiles compared to late-dividing embryos. Therefore, TL is effective in helping select high-quality embryos for PGT.
Article Details
Keywords
Timelapse, preimplantation genetic testing, KIDs score
References
2. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F. Technical Update. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Screening. Pubmed; 2015, 37(5): 451-63.
3. Scott L. Analysis of fertilization. In gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles G, Shoham Z(eds). Textbook of assited reproductive technologies, third edition; 2009, 207-217.
4. Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. Pubmed; 2011, 28: 569-573.
5. Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, et al. Time-Lapse User Group. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Pubmed; 2014, 29: 2650–2660.
6. Susanna Apter, Thomas Ebner, Thomas Freour, et al. Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology. Eshre; 2020.
7. Yalçınkaya E, Ergin EG, Calışkan E, et al. Reproducibility of a time-lapse embryo selection model base don morphokinetic data in a sequential culture media setting. Pubmed; 2014, 15: 156-160.
8. Goodman LR, Goldberg J, Falcone T, et al. 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.
9. Yang Z, Zhang J, Salem SA, 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: 38–38.
10. Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, et al (2014). Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril, 101: 699-704.
11. Eduardo Gazzo,Fernando Peña,Federico Valdéz,et al. The KidscoreTM D5 algorithm as an additional tool to morphological assessment and PGT-A in embryo selection: a time-lapse study. JBRA Assist Reprod; 2020, 24(1): 55-60.
12. Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, 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.