Danilo Cimadomo1, C Scarica2, R Maggiulli3, G Orlando3, D Soscia3, L Albricci3, S Romano3, F Sanges3, F M Ubaldi3, L Rienzi3. 1. Clinica Valle Giulia, G.EN.E.R.A. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Via G. de Notaris 2/b, 00197, Rome, Italy. cimadomo@generaroma.it. 2. Casa di Cura Villa Salaria, Rome, Italy. 3. Clinica Valle Giulia, G.EN.E.R.A. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Via G. de Notaris 2/b, 00197, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether continuous embryo culture involves better embryological and/or clinical outcomes than sequential. METHODS: Prospective study at a private IVF center. All consecutive IVF cycles (September 2013-2015) fulfilling the inclusion criteria underwent embryo culture in either Continuous-Single-Culture-Media (CSCM, n = 972) or sequential media (Quinn's Advantage, n = 514), respectively. ICSI, blastocyst culture in either standard (MINC) or undisturbed (Embryoscope) incubation, transfer (until September 2016), and pregnancy follow-up (until September 2017) were performed. When aneuploidy testing was required, trophectoderm biopsy and qPCR were performed. Sub-analyses and logistic regression corrected for confounders were performed. The primary outcomes were overall blastocyst rate per oocyte and mean blastocyst rate per cycle. The sample size was defined to reach 95 and 80% statistical power for the former and the latter outcome, respectively. Secondary outcomes were euploidy (if assessed), cumulative delivery rates, gestational age, and birthweight. RESULTS: Continuous embryo culture resulted into a higher overall blastocyst rate per inseminated oocyte than sequential (n = 2211/5841, 37.9% vs. 1073/3216, 33.4%; p < 0.01), confirmed also from a cycle-based analysis (mean blastocyst rate: 38.7% ± 29.7% vs. 34.3% ± 29.4%; p = 0.01). The continuous media (OR = 1.23), the undisturbed incubation system (OR = 1.22), the maternal age (OR = 0.92), and the sperm factor (OR = 0.85) were outlined as positive predictors of blastulation. However, the cumulative delivery rates per ended cycle (i.e., delivery achieved or no blastocyst produced or left; > 90%) were comparable in the two groups (n = 244/903, 27.0% vs. 129/475, 27.2%). The neonatal outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous culture involves better embryological but similar clinical outcomes than sequential. This large prospective study supports the absence of clinical disparity among the two approaches.
PURPOSE: To assess whether continuous embryo culture involves better embryological and/or clinical outcomes than sequential. METHODS: Prospective study at a private IVF center. All consecutive IVF cycles (September 2013-2015) fulfilling the inclusion criteria underwent embryo culture in either Continuous-Single-Culture-Media (CSCM, n = 972) or sequential media (Quinn's Advantage, n = 514), respectively. ICSI, blastocyst culture in either standard (MINC) or undisturbed (Embryoscope) incubation, transfer (until September 2016), and pregnancy follow-up (until September 2017) were performed. When aneuploidy testing was required, trophectoderm biopsy and qPCR were performed. Sub-analyses and logistic regression corrected for confounders were performed. The primary outcomes were overall blastocyst rate per oocyte and mean blastocyst rate per cycle. The sample size was defined to reach 95 and 80% statistical power for the former and the latter outcome, respectively. Secondary outcomes were euploidy (if assessed), cumulative delivery rates, gestational age, and birthweight. RESULTS: Continuous embryo culture resulted into a higher overall blastocyst rate per inseminated oocyte than sequential (n = 2211/5841, 37.9% vs. 1073/3216, 33.4%; p < 0.01), confirmed also from a cycle-based analysis (mean blastocyst rate: 38.7% ± 29.7% vs. 34.3% ± 29.4%; p = 0.01). The continuous media (OR = 1.23), the undisturbed incubation system (OR = 1.22), the maternal age (OR = 0.92), and the sperm factor (OR = 0.85) were outlined as positive predictors of blastulation. However, the cumulative delivery rates per ended cycle (i.e., delivery achieved or no blastocyst produced or left; > 90%) were comparable in the two groups (n = 244/903, 27.0% vs. 129/475, 27.2%). The neonatal outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous culture involves better embryological but similar clinical outcomes than sequential. This large prospective study supports the absence of clinical disparity among the two approaches.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blastocyst; Continuous culture; Sequential culture; Sequential media; Single-step media
Authors: John C Dumoulin; Jolande A Land; Aafke P Van Montfoort; Ewka C Nelissen; Edith Coonen; Josien G Derhaag; Inge L Schreurs; Gerard A Dunselman; Arnold D Kester; Joep P Geraedts; Johannes L Evers Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: A De Vos; R Janssens; H Van de Velde; P Haentjens; M Bonduelle; H Tournaye; G Verheyen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Sander H M Kleijkers; Aafke P A van Montfoort; Luc J M Smits; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Tessa J Roseboom; Ewka C M Nelissen; Edith Coonen; Josien G Derhaag; Lobke Bastings; Inge E L Schreurs; Johannes L H Evers; John C M Dumoulin Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Arne Sunde; Daniel Brison; John Dumoulin; Joyce Harper; Kersti Lundin; M Cristina Magli; Etienne Van den Abbeel; Anna Veiga Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Fernando Zegers-Hochschild; G David Adamson; Silke Dyer; Catherine Racowsky; Jacques de Mouzon; Rebecca Sokol; Laura Rienzi; Arne Sunde; Lone Schmidt; Ian D Cooke; Joe Leigh Simpson; Sheryl van der Poel Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Caitlin R Sacha; Daksha Gopal; Chia-Ling Liu; Howard R Cabral; Judy E Stern; Daniela A Carusi; Catherine Racowsky; Charles L Bormann Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2022-04-23 Impact factor: 7.490
Authors: Andrea Abdala; Ibrahim Elkhatib; Aşina Bayram; Ana Arnanz; Ahmed El-Damen; Laura Melado; Barbara Lawrenz; Carol Coughlan; Nicolas Garrido; Human M Fatemi; Neelke De Munck Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: E B Nguyen; E A Jacobs; K M Summers; A E Sparks; B J Van Voorhis; V E Klenov; E H Duran Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: Alison F Ermisch; Jason R Herrick; Rolando Pasquariello; McKenna C Dyer; Sarah M Lyons; Corey D Broeckling; Sandeep K Rajput; William B Schoolcraft; Rebecca L Krisher Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Susanna Apter; Thomas Ebner; Thomas Freour; Yves Guns; Borut Kovacic; Nathalie Le Clef; Monica Marques; Marcos Meseguer; Debbie Montjean; Ioannis Sfontouris; Roger Sturmey; Giovanni Coticchio Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2020-03-19