Literature DB >> 26385405

Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study whether preimplantation genetic screening with comprehensive chromosome screening (PGS-CCS) improves clinical implantation rates (IR) and sustained IR (beyond 20 weeks) compared with routine care for embryo selection in IVF cycles.
DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs).
SETTING: University-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENT(S): Infertile couples undergoing IVF. INTERVENTION(S): PGS-CCS with the use of different genetic platforms performed on polar body (PB), cleavage embryo, or blastocyst following embryo biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Clinical IR and sustained IR in RCTs as well as OSs comparing PGS-CCS and routine care were determined after a complete review of the literature. Pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) according to a fixed-effects model with the use of the Mantel-Haenszel method were calculated after the meta-analysis. Forest plots are provided for comparative purposes. RESULT(S): Out of 763 citations identified, 29 articles met initial eligibility criteria and were further analyzed. Of these, only three RCTs and eight OSs met full inclusion criteria, allowing direct comparison of PGS-CCS and routine IVF care based on embryo morphology selection. In the RCTs, all embryo biopsies were performed on day 5-6 of embryo development. In the OSs, biopsies were performed on different stages of embryo development, including PB, day 3, or day 5-6. Meta-analysis of the RCTs (3 studies; n = 659) showed that PGS-CCS was associated with a significantly higher clinical IR, with a pooled RR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.15-1.45), as well as a significantly higher sustained IR, with a pooled RR of 1.39 (95% CI 1.21-1.60). Similar findings were shown in the OSs, where the pooled RR for clinical IR was 1.78 (95% CI 1.60-1.99; 7 studies; n = 2,993) and for sustained IR was 1.75 (95% CI 1.48-2.07; 4 studies; n = 1,124). Statistical heterogeneity (I(2)) was minimal for RCTs and substantial among OSs. CONCLUSION(S): PGS with the use of CCS technology increases clinical and sustained IRs, thus improving embryo selection, particularly in patients with normal ovarian reserve. Results from ongoing RCTs conducted on different patient populations (e.g., decreased ovarian reserve) and different embryo stage biopsy (e.g., PB, day 3) may further clarify the role of this technology.
Copyright © 2015 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Preimplantation genetic screening; comprehensive chromosome screening; elective single embryo transfer; embryo selection

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26385405     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  50 in total

1.  Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos.

Authors:  Sonali Singh; Elie Hobeika; Eric S Knochenhauer; Michael L Traub
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  An integrated investigation of oocyte developmental competence: expression of key genes in human cumulus cells, morphokinetics of early divisions, blastulation, and euploidy.

Authors:  C Scarica; D Cimadomo; L Dovere; A Giancani; M Stoppa; A Capalbo; F M Ubaldi; L Rienzi; R Canipari
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-02-01       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

4.  The cost of a euploid embryo identified from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a counseling tool.

Authors:  Randi H Goldman; Catherine Racowsky; Leslie V Farland; Janis H Fox; Santiago Munné; Lia Ribustello; Elizabeth S Ginsburg
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 5.  Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management.

Authors:  Antonio Capalbo; Valeria Romanelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Laura Girardi; Marta Stoppa; Lisa Dovere; Domenico Dell'Edera; Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Laura Rienzi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Should preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) be implemented to routine IVF practice?

Authors:  Raoul Orvieto; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of morphologically grade CC blastocysts: are they of clinical value?

Authors:  Menghui Li; Mingru Yin; Ling Wu; Zhiguang Yan; Qifeng Lyu; Zheng Yan; Bin Li
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 2.344

8.  Comprehensive analysis of the associations between previous pregnancy failures and blastocyst aneuploidy as well as pregnancy outcomes after PGT-A.

Authors:  Tianxiang Ni; Qianqian Wu; Yueting Zhu; Wenjie Jiang; Qian Zhang; Yan Li; Junhao Yan; Zi-Jiang Chen
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)-finally revealed.

Authors:  Raoul Orvieto; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-02-02       Impact factor: 3.412

10.  Single best euploid versus single best unknown-ploidy blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kemal Ozgur; Murat Berkkanoglu; Hasan Bulut; Gonul Didem Akay Yoruk; Nevrah Nal Candurmaz; Kevin Coetzee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 3.412

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.