Array comparative genomic hybridization screening in IVF significantly reduces number of embryos available for cryopreservation.
10.5653/cerm.2012.39.2.52
- Author:
Jiaen LIU
1
;
E Scott SILLS
;
Zhihong YANG
;
Shala A SALEM
;
Tayyab RAHIL
;
Gary S COLLINS
;
Xiaohong LIU
;
Rifaat D SALEM
Author Information
1. IVF Division, Beijing Jia En De Yun Hospital, Beijing, China.
- Publication Type:Original Article ; In Vitro ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Fertilization in vitro;
Comparative genomic hybridization;
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis;
Cryopreservation
- MeSH:
Biopsy;
Blastocyst;
Comparative Genomic Hybridization;
Cryopreservation;
Embryo Transfer;
Embryonic Structures;
Fertilization in Vitro;
Freezing;
Humans;
Mass Screening;
Preimplantation Diagnosis;
Single Embryo Transfer
- From:Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
2012;39(2):52-57
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: During IVF, non-transferred embryos are usually selected for cryopreservation on the basis of morphological criteria. This investigation evaluated an application for array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in assessment of surplus embryos prior to cryopreservation. METHODS: First-time IVF patients undergoing elective single embryo transfer and having at least one extra non-transferred embryo suitable for cryopreservation were offered enrollment in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Patients in group A (n=55) had embryos assessed first by morphology and then by aCGH, performed on cells obtained from trophectoderm biopsy on post-fertilization day 5. Only euploid embryos were designated for cryopreservation. Patients in group B (n=48) had embryos assessed by morphology alone, with only good morphology embryos considered suitable for cryopreservation. RESULTS: Among biopsied embryos in group A (n=425), euploidy was confirmed in 226 (53.1%). After fresh single embryo transfer, 64 (28.3%) surplus euploid embryos were cryopreserved for 51 patients (92.7%). In group B, 389 good morphology blastocysts were identified and a single top quality blastocyst was selected for fresh transfer. All group B patients (48/48) had at least one blastocyst remaining for cryopreservation. A total of 157 (40.4%) blastocysts were frozen in this group, a significantly larger proportion than was cryopreserved in group A (p=0.017, by chi-squared analysis). CONCLUSION: While aCGH and subsequent frozen embryo transfer are currently used to screen embryos, this is the first investigation to quantify the impact of aCGH specifically on embryo cryopreservation. Incorporation of aCGH screening significantly reduced the total number of cryopreserved blastocysts compared to when suitability for freezing was determined by morphology only. IVF patients should be counseled that the benefits of aCGH screening will likely come at the cost of sharply limiting the number of surplus embryos available for cryopreservation.
