Search

Copyright of Ginecología y Obstetricia de México is the property of Federacion Mexicana de Ginecologia y Obstetricia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: To determine whether the embryonic euploidy rate and live birth outcomes following single, euploid embryo transfer (SEET) differ among women of self-reported racial and ethnic backgrounds., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all infertile patients of different self-reported racial backgrounds who underwent In vitro fertilization (IVF) with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and an autologous single euploid embryo transfer (SEET) from December 2015 to December 2019 at a single private and academic assisted reproduction technology center. Primary outcome measures included ploidy rates among different racial groups. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, and live birth rates., Results: Five thousand five hundred sixty-two patients who underwent an IVF cycle with ICSI-PGT-A were included. A total of 24,491 blastocysts were analyzed. White participants had on average more euploid embryos and higher euploidy rates when compared to their counterparts (p ≤ 0.0001). However, after controlling for confounding factors, there was no association between race and the odds of having  a higher euploidy rate (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 0.63-2.17, p = 0.42). A total of 4949 patients underwent SEET. Pregnancy outcomes did not differ among patients of varying self-reported races., Conclusions: Euploidy rates and pregnancy outcomes were comparable among patients of different racial backgrounds who underwent a SEET., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Although chromosomal heteromorphisms are commonly found in the general population, some researchers have suggested a correlation with higher rates of embryo aneuploidy. This study aimed to assess the rates of embryo aneuploidy in couples who carry a chromosome heteromorphism., Methods: The study included couples who had G-banding karyotype testing and underwent an IVF/PGT-A cycle between January 2012 and March 2018. The participants were classified by couple karyotype: Group A: ≥1 patient reported to be a heterochromatic variant carrier; Group B: both partners reported to be "normal". We assessed the rates of aneuploidy among the groups. We ran a multivariate regression analysis to assess the relationship between heterochromatic variants and the rates of embryo aneuploidy., Results: Of the 946 couples analyzed, 48 (5.0%) reported being a carrier of ≥1 heterochromatic variant. We had 869 IVF/PGT-A cycles included in the analysis (Group A: n=48; Group B: n=82). There were no significant differences in embryo ploidy rates among the groups. The heterochromatic chromosome variant was not associated with increased likelihoods of aneuploidy (OR=1.04, CI:95% 0.85- 1.07; p=0.46). Finally, the gender of the heterochromatic variant carrier had no association with increased likelihood of aneuploidy (OR 1.02, CI 95% 0.81-1.28, p=0.82)., Conclusions: Our study showed no association between parental heterochromatic chromosome variants and subsequent embryo aneuploidy rates. Ploidy rates do not appear to be negatively associated with couples when at least one patient is reported to be a carrier of a heterochromatic variant on the karyotype.

Study Question: What is the impact of a late follicular phase progesterone elevation (LFPE) during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) on embryonic competence and reproductive potential in thaw cycles of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) screened embryos?, Summary Answer: Our study findings suggest that LFPE, utilizing a progesterone cutoff value of 2.0 ng/ml, is neither associated with impaired embryonic development, increased rate of embryonic aneuploidy, nor compromised implantation and pregnancy outcomes following a euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle., What Is Known Already: Premature progesterone elevation during COH has been associated with lower pregnancy rates due to altered endometrial receptivity in fresh IVF cycles. Also, increased levels of progesterone (P) have been suggested to be a marker for ovarian dysfunction, with some evidence to show an association between LFPE and suboptimal embryonic development. However, the effect of LFPE on embryonic competence is still controversial., Study Design, Size, Duration: Retrospective cohort analysis in a single, academic ART center from September 2016 to March 2020. In total, 5244 COH cycles for IVF/PGT-A were analyzed, of those 5141 were included in the analysis. A total of 23 991 blastocysts underwent trophectoderm biopsy and PGT analysis. Additionally, the clinical IVF outcomes of 5806 single euploid FET cycles were evaluated., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Cohorts were separated in two groups: Group 1: oocytes retrieved from cycles with normal P levels during ovulation trigger (P ≤ 2.0 ng/ml); Group 2: oocytes retrieved after cycles in which LFPE was noted (P > 2.0 ng/ml). Extended culture and PGT-A was performed. Secondly, IVF outcomes after a single euploid FET were evaluated for each cohort., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Four thousand nine hundred and twenty-five cycles in Group 1 were compared with 216 cycles on Group 2. Oocyte maturity rates, fertilization rates and blastulation rates were comparable among groups. A 65.3% (n = 22 654) rate of utilizable blastocysts was found in patients with normal P levels and were comparable to the 62.4% (n = 1337) observed in those with LFPE (P = 0.19). The euploidy rates were 52.8% (n = 11 964) and 53.4% (n = 714), respectively, albeit this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.81). Our multivariate analysis was fitted with a generalized estimating equation (GEE) and no association was found with LFPE and an increased odds of embryo aneuploidy (adjusted odds ratio 1.04 95% CI 0.86-1.27, P = 0.62). A sub-analysis of subsequent 5806 euploid FET cycles (normal P: n = 5617 cycles and elevated P: n = 189 cycles) showed no differences among groups in patient's BMI, Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), endometrial thickness at FET and number of prior IVF cycles. However, a significant difference was found in patient's age and oocyte age. The number of good quality embryos transferred, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate and clinical pregnancy loss rates were comparable among groups. Of the registered live births (normal P group: n = 2198; elevated P group: n = 52), there were no significant differences in gestational age weeks (39.0 ± 1.89 versus 39.24 ± 1.53, P = 0.25) and birth weight (3317 ± 571.9 versus 3 266 ± 455.8 g, P = 0.26) at delivery, respectively., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The retrospective nature of the study and probable variability in the study center's laboratory protocol(s), selected progesterone cutoff value and progesterone assay techniques compared to other ART centers may limit the external validity of our findings., Wider Implications of the Findings: Based on robust sequencing data from a large cohort of embryos, we conclude that premature P elevation during IVF stimulation does not predict embryonic competence. Our study results show that LFPE is neither associated with impaired embryonic development nor increased rates of aneuploidy. Embryos obtained from cycles with LFPE can be selected for transfer, and patients can be reassured that the odds of achieving a healthy pregnancy are similar to the embryos exposed during COH cycles to physiologically normal P levels., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No funding was received for the realization of this study. Dr A.B.C. is advisor and/or board member of Sema 4 (Stakeholder in data), Progyny and Celmatix. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., Trial Registration Number: NA., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Genetic carrier screening has the potential to identify couples at risk of having a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder. However, the current prevalence of carrier status for these conditions in developing countries is not well defined. This study assesses the prevalence of carrier status of selected genetic conditions utilizing an expanded, pan-ethnic genetic carrier screening panel (ECS) in a large population of Mexican patients., Methods: Retrospective chart review of all patients tested with a single ECS panel at an international infertility center from 2012 to 2018 were included, and the prevalence of positive carrier status in a Mexican population was evaluated., Results: Eight hundred five individuals were analyzed with ECS testing for 283 genetic conditions. Three hundred fifty-two carriers (43.7%) were identified with 503 pathogenic variants in 145 different genes. Seventeen of the 391 participating couples (4.34%) were identified as being at-risk couples. The most prevalent alleles found were associated with alpha thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, GJB2 nonsyndromic hearing loss, biotinidase deficiency, and familial Mediterranean fever., Conclusion: Based on the prevalence and severity of Mendelian disorders, we recommend that couples who wish to conceive regardless of their ethnicity background explore carrier screening and genetic counseling prior to reproductive medical treatment., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: It is estimated that 15% of couples living in industrialized countries are infertile, ie have failed to conceive, reproductive age, after 12 months ormore of regular intercourse without contraception. During the past decade has increased the demand for fertility treatments because they believe are moreeffective now., Objective: To unify the therapeutic approach and service to patients and set a precedent for a Mexican Official Standard respect and support for the legislation of these procedures., Method: Consensus by technical experts group panel with the participation of 34 national centers accredited for use in assisted reproduction. He organized seven workshops with the following themes: 1) selection of patients for assisted reproduction treatment, 2) schemes controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction techniques of high complexity, 3) preparation and egg retrieval technique, 4) transferembryo; 5) luteal phase supplementation; 6) indications and techniques of cryopreservation and 7) informed consent. Each table had a coordinator who wrote and presented the findings to the full, it made a number of observations until they reached unanimity of criteria, which are reflected in this document., Results: Patient selection for assisted reproduction techniques is the first step of the process. Proper selection lead to success, in the same way that a bad pick up for failure. In the case of egg donation the most important recommendation is that only one to two embryos transferred in order to reduce multiple pregnancy rates and maintaining high pregnancy rates.