Literature DB >> 25599824

Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Elias M Dahdouh1, Jacques Balayla2, Juan Antonio García-Velasco3.   

Abstract

Embryonic aneuploidy is highly prevalent in IVF cycles and contributes to decreased implantation rates, IVF cycle failure and early pregnancy loss. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) selects the most competent (euploid) embryos for transfer, and has been proposed to improve IVF outcomes. Use of PGS with fluorescence-in-situ hybridization technology after day 3 embryo biopsy (PGS-v1) significantly lowers live birth rates and is not recommended for use. Comprehensive chromosome screening technology, which assesses the whole chromosome complement, can be achieved using different genetic platforms. Whether PGS using comprehensive chromosome screening after blastocyst biopsy (PGS-v2) improves IVF outcomes remains to be determined. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted on PGS-v2. Three trials met full inclusion criteria, comparing PGS-v2 and routine IVF care. PGS-v2 is associated with higher clinical implantation rates, and higher ongoing pregnancy rates when the same number of embryos is transferred in both PGS and control groups. Additionally, PGS-v2 improves embryo selection in eSET practice, maintaining the same ongoing pregnancy rates between PGS and control groups, while sharply decreasing multiple pregnancy rates. These results stem from good-prognosis patients undergoing IVF. Whether these findings can be extrapolated to poor-prognosis patients with decreased ovarian reserve remains to be determined.
Copyright © 2014 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  array comparative genomic hybridization; comprehensive chromosome screening; embryo selection; preimplantation genetic screening; quantitative polymerase chain reaction

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25599824     DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.11.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online        ISSN: 1472-6483            Impact factor:   3.828


  31 in total

1.  Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment.

Authors:  E Rocafort; M Enciso; A Leza; J Sarasa; J Aizpurua
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Natural selection between day 3 and day 5/6 PGD embryos in couples with reciprocal or Robertsonian translocations.

Authors:  Claire E Beyer; E Willats
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Pregnancy and child developmental outcomes after preimplantation genetic screening: a meta-analytic and systematic review.

Authors:  Misaki N Natsuaki; Laura M Dimler
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.764

Review 4.  Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory.

Authors:  Joep Geraedts; Karen Sermon
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.025

Review 5.  Recent advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening.

Authors:  Lina Lu; Bo Lv; Kevin Huang; Zhigang Xue; Xianmin Zhu; Guoping Fan
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers.

Authors:  J Tan; A Kan; J Hitkari; B Taylor; N Tallon; G Warraich; A Yuzpe; G Nakhuda
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  The number of biopsied trophectoderm cells may affect pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  Luis Guzman; D Nuñez; R López; N Inoue; J Portella; F Vizcarra; L Noriega-Portella; L Noriega-Hoces; S Munné
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 8.  Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing?

Authors:  Navid Esfandiari; Megan E Bunnell; Robert F Casper
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure.

Authors:  Mauro Cozzolino; Patricia Diaz-Gimeno; Antonio Pellicer; Nicolas Garrido
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 10.  The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists.

Authors:  Karen Sermon; Antonio Capalbo; Jacques Cohen; Edith Coonen; Martine De Rycke; Anick De Vos; Joy Delhanty; Francesco Fiorentino; Norbert Gleicher; Georg Griesinger; Jamie Grifo; Alan Handyside; Joyce Harper; Georgia Kokkali; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek; David Meldrum; Marcos Meseguer; Markus Montag; Santiago Munné; Laura Rienzi; Carmen Rubio; Katherine Scott; Richard Scott; Carlos Simon; Jason Swain; Nathan Treff; Filippo Ubaldi; Rita Vassena; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Willem Verpoest; Dagan Wells; Joep Geraedts
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.025

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.