4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 91, Issue 6, Pages 2432-2436

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.008

Keywords

Preimplantation genetic screening; embryo morphology; euploidy; aneuploidy; in vitro fertilization; assisted reproductive technology; ART outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the relationship between day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage by day 5. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Boston IVF, a large university-affiliated reproductive medicine practice. Patient(s): Ninety-nine patients undergoing their first preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) cycle between January 1 and December 31, 2006. Intervention(s): In vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Main Outcome Measure(s): Prevalence of euploidy for chromosomes X, Y, 8, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22 in day-3 high implantation potential (HIP) versus non-HIP embryos that grew to day-5 blastocysts. Result(s): Seven hundred three embryos from 99 cycles in 99 patients underwent PGS. Three hundred sixty-four (52%) embryos from 88 cycles in 88 patients developed to the blastocyst stage by day 5. High implantation potential embryos were more likely to be euploid for chromosomes X/Y, 8. 15, 16, 18, and 22 compared with non-HIP embryos, with similar trends for chromosomes 14 and 17. There were no statistically significant differences between HIP and non-HIP embryos in euploidy prevalence for chromosomes 13, 20, and 21. Conclusion(s): Our data suggest that PGS may detect potentially viable but detrimental chromosomal abnormalities that are not detected by embryo morphology alone. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;91:2432-6. (C) 2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available