Luis Guzman1,2, D Nuñez3, R López4, N Inoue3, J Portella3, F Vizcarra5, L Noriega-Portella3,5, L Noriega-Hoces3,5, S Munné6. 1. PRANOR Laboratorio, Grupo de Reproducción Asistida, Av. Monterrico 1045, Urb El Derby de Monterrico, 33, Lima, Peru. lguzmanm@gmail.com. 2. ADN Diagnostico, Calle Los Olivos 364. San Isidro, 33, Lima, Peru. lguzmanm@gmail.com. 3. PRANOR Laboratorio, Grupo de Reproducción Asistida, Av. Monterrico 1045, Urb El Derby de Monterrico, 33, Lima, Peru. 4. ADN Diagnostico, Calle Los Olivos 364. San Isidro, 33, Lima, Peru. 5. Clínica Monterrico, Av. Monterrico 1045. Urb El Derby de Monterrico, 33, Lima, Peru. 6. CooperGenomics, Livingston, NJ, 0703, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study if the number of trophectoderm (TE) biopsied cells has an impact on implantation rates. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study in a single-center study. SETTING: In vitro fertilization center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent PGT-A from January 2013 to March 2016. In total, 482 vitrified/warmed single embryo transfers were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical pregnancies rate, implantation rate. RESULTS: Overall, clinical pregnancies per embryo transfer were higher when a regular TE were biopsied compared to larger size biopsy cells (66% (175/267) vs 53% (115/215) (p < 0.005) respectively). Pregnancy rates were also analyzed according to embryo morphology at the moment of embryo biopsy, when a good-quality embryo was transferred the clinical outcome was 75% (81/108) in group 1 and 61% (60/99) in group 2 (p < 0.05). Data was also stratified by age in patients ≤ 35 years and > 35 years. The clinical pregnancy was 67% (51/76) in women ≤ 35 years and 65% (124/191) in women > 35 years when a regular size biopsy was performed. These results significantly reduced when a larger size biopsy was performed 54% (49/91) and 53% (66/124), respectively (p < 0.05). Further investigation indicated that miscarriage rate was similar between these groups (4% (7/182) in group 1 and 5% (6/121) in group 2). CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore that when a large amount of TE cells are biopsied, it may negatively affect implantation rates, but once implanted, the embryos have the same chance to miscarry or reach term.
OBJECTIVE: To study if the number of trophectoderm (TE) biopsied cells has an impact on implantation rates. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study in a single-center study. SETTING: In vitro fertilization center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent PGT-A from January 2013 to March 2016. In total, 482 vitrified/warmed single embryo transfers were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical pregnancies rate, implantation rate. RESULTS: Overall, clinical pregnancies per embryo transfer were higher when a regular TE were biopsied compared to larger size biopsy cells (66% (175/267) vs 53% (115/215) (p < 0.005) respectively). Pregnancy rates were also analyzed according to embryo morphology at the moment of embryo biopsy, when a good-quality embryo was transferred the clinical outcome was 75% (81/108) in group 1 and 61% (60/99) in group 2 (p < 0.05). Data was also stratified by age in patients ≤ 35 years and > 35 years. The clinical pregnancy was 67% (51/76) in women ≤ 35 years and 65% (124/191) in women > 35 years when a regular size biopsy was performed. These results significantly reduced when a larger size biopsy was performed 54% (49/91) and 53% (66/124), respectively (p < 0.05). Further investigation indicated that miscarriage rate was similar between these groups (4% (7/182) in group 1 and 5% (6/121) in group 2). CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore that when a large amount of TE cells are biopsied, it may negatively affect implantation rates, but once implanted, the embryos have the same chance to miscarry or reach term.
Entities:
Keywords:
PGT-A; Pregnancy outcomes; SNP-arrays; TE cells biopsy; aCGH
Authors: Y Verlinsky; I Tur-Kaspa; J Cieslak; A Bernal; R Morris; M Taranissi; B Kaplan; A Kuliev Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: S Munné; C Magli; J Cohen; P Morton; S Sadowy; L Gianaroli; M Tucker; C Márquez; D Sable; A P Ferraretti; J B Massey; R Scott Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Gayle M Jones; David S Cram; Bi Song; Georgia Kokkali; Kostas Pantos; Alan O Trounson Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2008-05-13 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Bruce S Shapiro; Said T Daneshmand; Forest C Garner; Martha Aguirre; Cynthia Hudson; Shyni Thomas Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Andrea Abdala; Ibrahim Elkhatib; Aşina Bayram; Ana Arnanz; Ahmed El-Damen; Laura Melado; Barbara Lawrenz; Human M Fatemi; Neelke De Munck Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: João Paolo Bilibio; Pânila Longhi Lorenzzoni; Brenda Mendes de Oliveira; Flora Leal Nascimento; Arivaldo José Conceição Meireles; Fábio Costa do Nascimento Journal: JBRA Assist Reprod Date: 2022-04-17