IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marginal differences in preimplantation morphokinetics between conventional IVF and ICSI in patients with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): A sibling oocyte study

Author

Listed:
  • Neelke De Munck
  • Aşina Bayram
  • Ibrahim Elkhatib
  • Andrea Abdala
  • Ahmed El-Damen
  • Ana Arnanz
  • Laura Melado
  • Barbara Lawrenz
  • Human Mousavi Fatemi

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the morphokinetic behaviour between conventional IVF and ICSI, in cycles with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Materials: A randomized controlled trial (NCT03708991) was conducted in a private fertility center. Thirty couples with non-male factor infertility were recruited between November 2018 and April 2019. A total of 568 sibling cumulus oocyte complexes were randomly inseminated with conventional IVF and ICSI and cultured in an Embryoscope time-lapse system. The morphokinetic behaviour of IVF/ICSI sibling oocytes was analysed as primary endpoint. As secondary endpoints, morphokinetic parameters that predict blastocysts that will be biopsied, the day of biopsy, gender and euploid outcome was assessed. Results: When comparing IVF to ICSI, only the time to reach the 2-cell stage (t2) was significantly delayed for IVF embryos: OR: 1.282 [1.020–1.612], p = 0.033. After standardizing for tPNf (ct parameters), only Blast(tStartBlastulation-t2) remained significant: OR: 0.803 [0.648–0.994], p = 0.044. For the analysis of zygotes that will be biopsied on day 5/6 versus zygotes without biopsy, only early morphokinetic parameters were considered. All parameters were different in the multivariate model: ct2: OR: 0.840 [0.709–0.996], p = 0.045; ct6: OR: 0.943 [0.890–0.998], p = 0.043; cc2(t3-t2): OR: 1.148 [1.044–1.263], p = 0.004; cc3(t5-t3): OR: 1.177 [1.107–1.251], p

Suggested Citation

  • Neelke De Munck & Aşina Bayram & Ibrahim Elkhatib & Andrea Abdala & Ahmed El-Damen & Ana Arnanz & Laura Melado & Barbara Lawrenz & Human Mousavi Fatemi, 2022. "Marginal differences in preimplantation morphokinetics between conventional IVF and ICSI in patients with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): A sibling oocyte study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267241
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267241
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267241&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267241?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Vera-Rodriguez & Shawn L. Chavez & Carmen Rubio & Renee A. Reijo Pera & Carlos Simon, 2015. "Prediction model for aneuploidy in early human embryo development revealed by single-cell analysis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Shawn L. Chavez & Kevin E. Loewke & Jinnuo Han & Farshid Moussavi & Pere Colls & Santiago Munne & Barry Behr & Renee A. Reijo Pera, 2012. "Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 1-12, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Minghao Chen & Shiyou Wei & Junyan Hu & Jing Yuan & Fenghua Liu, 2017. "Does time-lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta-analysis and systematic review of rando," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.