Literature DB >> 32152909

A clinical counseling tool predicting supernumerary embryos after a fresh IVF cycle.

Yetunde Ibrahim1, Greg Stoddard2, Erica Johnstone3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To identify factors predictive of having supernumerary embryos in a fresh IVF cycle and create a prediction model for clinical counseling.
METHODS: We utilized a multivariable Poisson regression to identify predictive factors and then entered these into a logistic regression model, calculating a risk index for each significant variable. The final model was tested using a receiver operating characteristic curve.
RESULTS: A total of 60,616 fresh transfer cycles were reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology in 2014. Of these, 47.17% produced supernumerary embryos. A multivariate Poisson regression identified factors predictive of having supernumerary embryos, with age and AMH being the most predictive. Clinical prediction models were developed with acceptable and excellent discrimination. 23.5% of our cohort did not achieve a live birth following their fresh transfer and had excess embryos cryopreserved for future attempts.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that in a minority of fresh IVF cycles in the USA, the fresh transfer is not successful, and there are excess embryos cryopreserved for future use. The likelihood of excess embryos beyond those that would be transferred can be predicted with satisfactory precision prior to initiation of the cycle and with improved precision after fresh embryo transfer. Providing patients with a realistic estimate of their chances of having excess embryos at an initial IVF consult especially those with suspected poor prognosis can be beneficial in determining whether to proceed with multiple embryo banking cycles as opposed to proceeding with a fresh transfer, and whether to opt for an enhanced embryo selection technique such as preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Counseling tool; Embryo selection; Fresh IVF cycle; Prediction model; Preimplantation genetic testing

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32152909      PMCID: PMC7244666          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-01731-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  22 in total

Review 1.  Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions.

Authors:  Lisa M Sullivan; Joseph M Massaro; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Santiago Munné; Brian Kaplan; John L Frattarelli; Tim Child; Gary Nakhuda; F Nicholas Shamma; Kaylen Silverberg; Tasha Kalista; Alan H Handyside; Mandy Katz-Jaffe; Dagan Wells; Tony Gordon; Sharyn Stock-Myer; Susan Willman
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2019-09-21       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is cost-effective, shortens treatment time, and reduces the risk of failed embryo transfer and clinical miscarriage.

Authors:  Shelby A Neal; Scott J Morin; Jason M Franasiak; Linnea R Goodman; Caroline R Juneau; Eric J Forman; Marie D Werner; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos?

Authors:  Panagiotis Drakopoulos; Christophe Blockeel; Dominic Stoop; Michel Camus; Michel de Vos; Herman Tournaye; Nikolaos P Polyzos
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-01-02       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  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

6.  In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43.

Authors:  Hsiao-Ling Lee; David H McCulloh; Brooke Hodes-Wertz; Alexis Adler; Caroline McCaffrey; James A Grifo
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 7.  Should every embryo undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy? A review of the modern approach to in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Susan M Maxwell; James A Grifo
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 5.237

8.  Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard T Scott; Kathleen M Upham; Eric J Forman; Kathleen H Hong; Katherine L Scott; Deanne Taylor; Xin Tao; Nathan R Treff
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Burden of care is the primary reason why insured women terminate in vitro fertilization treatment.

Authors:  Alice D Domar; Kristin Rooney; Michele R Hacker; Denny Sakkas; Laura E Dodge
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 10.  Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus?

Authors:  Abha Maheshwari; David McLernon; Siladitya Bhattacharya
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 6.918

View more
  1 in total

1.  A validated prediction score for having two or more embryos for cryopreservation following freeze-all IVF cycles: an analysis utilizing SART CORS database.

Authors:  Yetunde Ibrahim; Gregory J Stoddard; Erica Johnstone
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 3.412

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.