4.4 Article

Relative kinetic expressions defining cleavage synchronicity are better predictors of blastocyst formation and quality than absolute time points

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 27-35

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-014-0341-x

Keywords

Time-lapse imaging; Morphokinetics; Synchronicity; Cleavage; Blastocyst

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Morphology alone is not enough for the selection of the embryo (s) with the highest implantation potential and time-lapse imaging has added embryo development kinetics as another selection criterion. Therefore, a combination of morphology with kinetics has inspired a new field termed morphokinetics, providing a new way of evaluating and selecting embryos. The aim of the study was to identify a criterion solely based on morphokinetic data and available up to the 8-cell stage (t8) to predict blastocyst formation and quality. The study included 3,354 embryos, with annotations up to t8, and cultured until day 5 from 626 infertile patients. A total of 17 kinetic expressions, either absolute cleavage timings and time intervals or time ratios were tested retrospectively for the prediction of blastocyst formation and quality. Relative timings (t8-t5, the cleavage synchronicity from 4 to 8 cells and from 2 to 8 cells) were found to be better indicators of blastocyst formation and quality when compared to absolute time-points. Especially, the cleavage synchronicity from 2 to 8 cells (CS2-8) = ((t3-t2) + (t5-t4))/(t8-t2)) was found to be the best predictor available on day 3 for blastocyst formation and quality (AUC:0.786; sensitivity: 83.43; specificity: 62.46). Time intervals and relative ratios based on selected cleavage cycles defining synchronicity allowed a specific analysis providing high predictivity of blastocyst formation and quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available