Catherine Racowsky1, Peter Kovacs, Wellington P Martins. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, ASB 1+3, Rm 082, Boston, MA, 02115, USA, cracowsky@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to undertake a critical appraisal of the available evidence for the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection in clinical IVF. METHODS: A literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of time-lapse embryo selection and/or the time-lapse incubation system on ongoing pregnancy rate. We then performed a systematic review and assessed the relative risks (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for ongoing pregnancy rates and the risk of bias of the eligible studies. RESULTS: We identified four eligible randomized studies, three of which investigated the effect of both time-lapse incubation system and selection on ongoing pregnancy rate; the pooled result revealed a benefit of this intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.20; 95 % CI 1.05-1.37). However, the evidence was judged to be of low quality due to study limitations; a beneficial effect was observed in only one study deemed to be at high risk of bias. The single study assessing the effect of only the time-lapse incubation system revealed a non-significant negative effect (RR 0.71; 95 % CI 0.49-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this systematic review of the current evidence do not support routine use of time-lapse technology in clinical IVF. We therefore believe that the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection should remain experimental and that couples should not be subject to a surcharge for having their embryos cultured in a time-lapse imaging system. Future studies evaluating this technology in well-designed trials should be performed.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to undertake a critical appraisal of the available evidence for the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection in clinical IVF. METHODS: A literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of time-lapse embryo selection and/or the time-lapse incubation system on ongoing pregnancy rate. We then performed a systematic review and assessed the relative risks (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for ongoing pregnancy rates and the risk of bias of the eligible studies. RESULTS: We identified four eligible randomized studies, three of which investigated the effect of both time-lapse incubation system and selection on ongoing pregnancy rate; the pooled result revealed a benefit of this intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.20; 95 % CI 1.05-1.37). However, the evidence was judged to be of low quality due to study limitations; a beneficial effect was observed in only one study deemed to be at high risk of bias. The single study assessing the effect of only the time-lapse incubation system revealed a non-significant negative effect (RR 0.71; 95 % CI 0.49-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this systematic review of the current evidence do not support routine use of time-lapse technology in clinical IVF. We therefore believe that the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection should remain experimental and that couples should not be subject to a surcharge for having their embryos cultured in a time-lapse imaging system. Future studies evaluating this technology in well-designed trials should be performed.
Authors: L T Polanski; M A Coelho Neto; C O Nastri; P A Navarro; R A Ferriani; N Raine-Fenning; W P Martins Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Kelly Athayde Wirka; Alice A Chen; Joe Conaghan; Kristen Ivani; Marina Gvakharia; Barry Behr; Vaishali Suraj; Lei Tan; Shehua Shen Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Shawn L Chavez; Kevin E Loewke; Jinnuo Han; Farshid Moussavi; Pere Colls; Santiago Munne; Barry Behr; Renee A Reijo Pera Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2012 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: N Zaninovic; M Nohales; Q Zhan; Z M J de Los Santos; J Sierra; Z Rosenwaks; M Meseguer Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Ioannis A Sfontouris; Wellington P Martins; Carolina O Nastri; Iara G R Viana; Paula A Navarro; Nick Raine-Fenning; Sheryl van der Poel; Laura Rienzi; Catherine Racowsky Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: S Caujolle; R Cernat; G Silvestri; M J Marques; A Bradu; T Feuchter; G Robinson; D K Griffin; A Podoleanu Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Mara Simopoulou; Konstantinos Sfakianoudis; Anna Rapani; Polina Giannelou; George Anifandis; Stamatis Bolaris; Agni Pantou; Maria Lambropoulou; Athanasios Pappas; Efthimios Deligeoroglou; Konstantinos Pantos; Michael Koutsilieris Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155