Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T00:45:47.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improved embryonic development and utilization rates with EmbryoScope: a within-subject comparison versus a benchtop incubator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2022

Amanda Souza Setti Open the ORCID record for Amanda Souza Setti [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga ,
Livia Vingris ,
Assumpto Iaconelli Jr  and
Edson Borges Jr
Amanda Souza Setti*
Affiliation:
Fertility Medical Group, Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antonio, 4545, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 01401–002 Sapientiae Institute, Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa em Reprodução Humana Assistida, Rua Vieira Maciel, 62, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 04503-040
Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga
Affiliation:
Fertility Medical Group, Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antonio, 4545, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 01401–002 Sapientiae Institute, Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa em Reprodução Humana Assistida, Rua Vieira Maciel, 62, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 04503-040
Livia Vingris
Affiliation:
Fertility Medical Group, Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antonio, 4545, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 01401–002
Assumpto Iaconelli Jr
Affiliation:
Fertility Medical Group, Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antonio, 4545, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 01401–002 Sapientiae Institute, Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa em Reprodução Humana Assistida, Rua Vieira Maciel, 62, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 04503-040
Edson Borges Jr
Affiliation:
Fertility Medical Group, Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antonio, 4545, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 01401–002 Sapientiae Institute, Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa em Reprodução Humana Assistida, Rua Vieira Maciel, 62, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip: 04503-040
*
Author for correspondence: Amanda Setti. Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antonio, 4545, São Paulo/SP, Brazil. Zip: 01401-002. Tel: +55 11 3018-8181. E-mail: amanda@sapientiae.org.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of this study was to investigate whether, in consecutive intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, embryonic development in an incubator with a time-lapse imaging (TLI) system is better than the previous one obtained in a benchtop incubator (G-185) with similar cultivation characteristics. The study was of a retrospective within-subject design, in which each cycle served as its own control. Data were obtained via the chart review of patients undergoing ICSI in a private university-affiliated in vitro fertilization (IVF) centre who fulfilled the following criteria: second ICSI attempt in which embryos were cultured in a TLI incubator system (TLI group, n = 71), preceded by a first ICSI attempt in which embryos were cultured in a benchtop incubator (Control group, n = 71). Embryonic development up to the fifth day of development, oocyte utilization rate (OUR; transferred embryos plus frozen embryos per total number of retrieved oocytes) and embryo utilization rate (EUR; transferred embryos plus frozen embryos per normally fertilized oocyte) were compared between the groups. There were significant differences in the day 2 non-cleavage rate, day 5 embryo rate, blastocyst development rate, frozen blastocyst rate, OUR, and EUR, in favour of the TLI group. Embryonic development, frozen blastocyst rate, OUR and EUR in the second ICSI cycle were significantly improved when the culture was performed in the EmbryoScope, compared with those rates obtained with culture in a G-185 in the first ICSI cycle of the same patients. The results may also lead to higher cumulative pregnancy outcomes following embryo thawing and transfer.

Keywords

BlastocystEmbryo developmentICSIMorphokineticsTime-lapse imaging
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , October 2022 , pp. 633 - 637
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Barberet, J., Chammas, J., Bruno, C., Valot, E., Vuillemin, C., Jonval, L., Choux, C., Sagot, P., Soudry, A. and Fauque, P. (2018). Randomized controlled trial comparing embryo culture in two incubator systems: G185 K-System versus embryoscope. Fertility and Sterility, 109(2), 302–309.e1.e301. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, M., Wei, S., Hu, J., Yuan, J. and Liu, F. (2017). Does time-lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0178720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178720 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruz, M., Gadea, B., Garrido, N., Pedersen, K. S., Martínez, M., Pérez-Cano, I., Muñoz, M. and Meseguer, M. (2011). Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 28(7), 569–573. doi: 10.1007/s10815-011-9549-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebner, T., Shebl, O., Moser, M., Mayer, R. B., Arzt, W. and Tews, G. (2010). Group culture of human zygotes is superior to individual culture in terms of blastulation, implantation and life birth. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 21(6), 762–768. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.038 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujiwara, M., Takahashi, K., Izuno, M., Duan, Y. R., Kazono, M., Kimura, F. and Noda, Y. (2007). Effect of micro-environment maintenance on embryo culture after in-vitro fertilization: Comparison of top-load mini incubator and conventional front-load incubator. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 24(1), 5–9. doi: 10.1007/s10815-006-9088-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkegaard, K., Hindkjaer, J. J., Grøndahl, M. L., Kesmodel, U. S. and Ingerslev, H. J. (2012). A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 29(6), 565–572. doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9750-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meseguer, M., Herrero, J., Tejera, A., Hilligsøe, K. M., Ramsing, N. B. and Remohí, J. (2011). The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Human Reproduction, 26(10), 2658–2671. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der256 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakahara, T., Iwase, A., Goto, M., Harata, T., Suzuki, M., Ienaga, M., Kobayashi, H., Takikawa, S., Manabe, S., Kikkawa, F. and Ando, H. (2010). Evaluation of the safety of time-lapse observations for human embryos. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 27(2–3), 93–96. doi: 10.1007/s10815-010-9385-8 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, C. (1997). Evidence for the requirement of autocrine growth factors for development of mouse preimplantation embryos in vitro . Biology of Reproduction, 56(1), 229–237. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod56.1.229 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, C. (1998). Role of autocrine mediators in the regulation of embryo viability: Lessons from animal models. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 15(8), 460–465. doi: 10.1023/a:1022574102364 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palermo, G., Joris, H., Devroey, P. and Van Steirteghem, A. C. (1992). Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet, 340, 17–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, H., Bergh, C., Selleskog, U., Thurin-Kjellberg, A. and Lundin, K. (2015). No benefit of culturing embryos in a closed system compared with a conventional incubator in terms of number of good quality embryos: Results from an RCT. Human Reproduction, 30(2), 268–275. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio, I., Galán, A., Larreategui, Z., Ayerdi, F., Bellver, J., Herrero, J. and Meseguer, M. (2014). Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: A randomized, controlled trial of the embryoscope. Fertility and Sterility, 102(5), 1287–1294.e5. e1285. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.738 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakkas, D. and Gardner, D. K. (2013). Limitations and benefits of morphologic embryo assessment strategies: How far can morphological assessment go in the identification of viable embryos? Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos, Springer, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Borght, M. and Wyns, C. (2018). Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clinical Biochemistry, 62, 2–10. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2010). WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Geneva, World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. G., Lazzaroni-Tealdi, E., Wang, Q., Zhang, L., Barad, D. H., Kushnir, V. A., Darmon, S. K., Albertini, D. F. and Gleicher, N. (2016). Different effectiveness of closed embryo culture system with time-lapse imaging (embryoscope TM) in comparison with standard manual embryology in good and poor prognosis patients: A prospectively randomized pilot study. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology: RB&E, 14(1), 49. doi: 10.1186/s12958-016-0181-x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, J. Q., Li, X. L., Peng, Y., Guo, X., Heng, B. C. and Tong, G. Q. (2010). Reduction in exposure of human embryos outside the incubator enhances embryo quality and blastulation rate. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 20(4), 510–515. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.12.027 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed