Search

Abstract Research question Can embryo morphokinetic parameters help identify unbalanced embryos in translocation carriers? Design This retrospective study was conducted in 67 translocation carriers undergoing 105 preimplantation genetic testing cycles for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) without aneuploidy screening (PGT-A). Using time-lapse imaging analysis, morphokinetic parameters of balanced and unbalanced embryos were compared, as well as the frequency of abnormal cellular events. The performance of a previously published prediction model of aneuploidy was also tested in this population. Results Significant differences were observed between balanced and unbalanced embryos for some morphokinetic parameters: t5 (P = 0.0067), t9+ (P = 0.0077), cc2 (P = 0.0144), s2 (P = 0.0003) and t5–t2 (P = 0.0028). Also, multinucleation at the two- or four-cell stages, abnormal division and cell exclusion at the morula stage were significantly (all P < 0.05) more frequent in unbalanced than in balanced embryos. None, however, could accurately predict embryo chromosomal status. A previously published morphokinetic prediction model for embryo aneuploidy did not adequately classify balanced and unbalanced embryos. Conclusions No significant morphokinetic predictor of chromosomal status could be found. Time-lapse should not be used as a diagnostic tool for chromosomal status in translocation carriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To study the performance of a previously published implantation prediction model based on morphokinetics in a different setting, in an unselected population and with various embryo transfer strategies. Design Retrospective monocentric study. Setting University-based assisted reproduction technology (ART) center. Patient(s) 450 unselected couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle with embryo culture in the EmbryoScope (Unisense Fertilitech), corresponding to 528 embryos with known implantation. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Implantation rates (IR) in embryo categories defined by the model in the overall population and in subgroups according to the day of embryo transfer. Result(s) The distribution of IR among detailed morphokinetic categories in the overall population and in subgroups according to the day of embryo transfer was more heterogeneous than expected according to the published model. The distribution corresponded better to the original when a simplified version of the model was used, although it worked better in the cleavage-stage group than in the blastocyst-stage group. Conclusion(s) This study was unsuccessful in replicating the sensitivity of the previously published model for predicting implantation rate of embryos ranked according to morphokinetic categories. Further work is required to assess the utility of the model for embryo selection. Each team using time-lapse technology should build a center-specific prediction model based on its own data and transfer policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]