Literature DB >> 18930977

Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer.

C Staessen1, W Verpoest, P Donoso, P Haentjens, J Van der Elst, I Liebaers, P Devroey.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single-embryo transfer is a well-accepted strategy to avoid multiple pregnancies in an assisted reproductive technology (ART) programme. Besides the morphological quality and embryo kinetics up to the blastocyst stage, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) of aneuploidy has been advocated as an adjuvant approach to select the embryo.
METHODS: Couples with a female partner younger than 36 were randomly assigned to undergo transfer of a single blastocyst in a cycle with or without PGS using FISH for the chromosomes X, Y, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22.
RESULTS: After the enrolment of 120 of the projected 447 patients in each group, study recruitment was terminated prematurely on the basis of futility. The observed live birth delivery rates after ART were 30.8 versus 30.8% per randomized patient, 34.6 versus 34.6% per cycle initiated, 37.8 versus 37.0% per aspirated cycle and 41.6 versus 43.5% per embryo transfer for the control versus the PGS group, respectively, with absolute between-group differences (95% CI; P value) of 0% (-11.7 to 11.7; P = 1.00), 0% (-12.7 to 12.7; P = 1.00), -0.8% (-14.2 to 12.7; P = 0.91) and 2.1% (-12.7 to 16.7; P = 0.79), respectively. Even in this younger age group, only 61% of the embryos had a normal diploid status.
CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a beneficial treatment effect in this randomized clinical trial provides no arguments in favour of PGS to improve live birth delivery rate following single-embryo transfer in women under the age 36. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT00670059.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18930977     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den367

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  34 in total

1.  Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages.

Authors:  Martin D Keltz; Mario Vega; Ido Sirota; Matthew Lederman; Erin L Moshier; Eric Gonzales; Daniel Stein
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Miguel A Checa; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Ivan Solà; Ana Robles; Ramón Carreras; Juan Balasch
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  PGS-FISH in reproductive medicine and perspective directions for improvement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sandra Zamora; Ana Clavero; M Carmen Gonzalvo; Juan de Dios Luna Del Castillo; Jose Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes; Juan Mozas; Jose Antonio Castilla
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 4.  Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Authors:  Kim Dao Ly; Ashok Agarwal; Zsolt Peter Nagy
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2011-07-09       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Blastomere biopsy for PGD delays embryo compaction and blastulation: a time-lapse microscopic analysis.

Authors:  Liron Bar-El; Yael Kalma; Mira Malcov; Tamar Schwartz; Shaul Raviv; Tania Cohen; Hadar Amir; Yoni Cohen; Adi Reches; Ami Amit; Dalit Ben-Yosef
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH.

Authors:  Nathan R Treff; Brynn Levy; Jing Su; Lesley E Northrop; Xin Tao; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 4.025

Review 7.  Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility.

Authors:  P Devroey; B C J M Fauser; K Diedrich
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 15.610

8.  What next for preimplantation genetic screening? High mitotic chromosome instability rate provides the biological basis for the low success rate.

Authors:  Evelyne Vanneste; Thierry Voet; Cindy Melotte; Sophie Debrock; Karen Sermon; Catherine Staessen; Inge Liebaers; Jean-Pierre Fryns; Thomas D'Hooghe; Joris R Vermeesch
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol.

Authors:  D S Johnson; G Gemelos; J Baner; A Ryan; C Cinnioglu; M Banjevic; R Ross; M Alper; B Barrett; J Frederick; D Potter; B Behr; M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-01-24       Impact factor: 6.918

10.  What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach!

Authors:  Joep Geraedts; John Collins; Luca Gianaroli; Veerle Goossens; Alan Handyside; Joyce Harper; Markus Montag; Sjoerd Repping; Andreas Schmutzler
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2009-12-23       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.