Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients. Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF). Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the control groups. Conclusion PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients. Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF). Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the control groups. Conclusion PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients. Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF). Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the control groups. Conclusion PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients. Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF). Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the control groups. Conclusion PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

Anesthesia and analgesia are major components of many interventional studies on laboratory animals. However, various studies have shown improper reporting or use of anesthetics/analgesics in research proposals and published articles. In many cases, it seems “anesthesia” and “analgesia” are used interchangeably, while they are referring to two different concepts. Not only this is an unethical practice, but also it may be one of the reasons for the proven sub‑ optimal quality of many animal researches. This is a widespread problem among investigations on various species of animals. However, it could be imagined that it may be more prevalent for the most common species of laboratory animals, such as the laboratory mice. In this review, proper anesthetic/analgesic methods for routine procedures on laboratory mice are discussed. We considered the available literature and critically reviewed their anesthetic/analge‑ sic methods. Detailed dosing and pharmacological information for the relevant drugs are provided and some of the drugs’ side effects are discussed. This paper provides the necessary data for an informed choice of anesthetic/analge‑ sic methods in some routine procedures on laboratory mice.