4.4 Article

Comparison of two protocols of blastocyst biopsy submitted to preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies: a randomized controlled trial

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 299, Issue 5, Pages 1487-1493

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05084-1

Keywords

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A); Blastocyst biopsy; Embryonic aneuploidy; Next-generation sequencing; Frozen embryo transfer

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81601256]
  2. Merck Serono China Research Fund for Fertility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo compare the effectiveness of two protocols of blastocyst biopsy submitted to preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A).MethodsThis is a randomized controlled trial of a cohort of 221 patients undergoing PGT-A. 106 female patients aged 40years with no less than 8 mature oocytes retrieved and 3 good-quality embryos on day 3 were randomly assigned to the day-3 hatching-based TE biopsy. The remaining 115 females aged 40years with 8 MII oocytes obtained and no less than 3 high-quality embryos on day 3 were assigned to the TE biopsy without hatching group (also called the new biopsy group). The primary outcome was measured by a live birth after the first embryo transfer.ResultsThe live birth rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (50.00% vs. 59.26%, P>0.05, OR 1.46; 95% CI 0.78-2.70). There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy, and miscarriage. However, the frozen blastocyst rate was significantly lower in the day-3 hatching-based TE biopsy compared with the new biopsy group (47.54% vs. 53.96%, P<0.05, OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08-1.56).ConclusionsOur study provides strong evidence that the new blastocyst biopsy method exhibits advantages over day-3 hatching-based TE biopsy method. Using this method, we were able to obtain more blastocysts to perform trophectoderm biopsy in patients subjected to PGT-A.

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