Comparison of embryonic development time kinetic parameters, embryo development potential and clinical outcomes of different embryo culture reagents
10.3760/cma.j.cn101441-20190711-00301
- VernacularTitle:不同胚胎培养试剂胚胎发育时间动力学参数、胚胎发育潜能及临床结局的比较
- Author:
Haixia JIN
1
;
Saisai WANG
1
;
Senlin SHI
1
;
Wenyan SONG
1
;
Yan LIU
1
;
Shuang WEN
1
;
Zhaoting WU
1
Author Information
1. 郑州大学第一附属医院生殖中心，河南省郑州大学第一附属医院生殖与遗传重点实验室 450052
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Time-lapse imaging;
Embryo culture media;
Embryonic development potential;
Time dynamics;
Clinical outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Reproduction and Contraception
2020;40(4):294-300
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the effects of two embryo culture reagents on embryonic developmental time dynamics, embryonic development potential and clinical pregnancy outcomes.Methods:The data of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) were retrospectively analyzed at the Center for Reproductive Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from September 2016 to May 2018. According to the different embryo culture reagents, they were divided into Vitrolife group and Cook group, comparing the embryonic time dynamics parameters, embryo development potential and clinical pregnancy outcomes of 470 patients who met the criteria. Results:There were significant differences in the kinetic parameters of embryo development between the two different embryo culture reagents. Compared with Cook group, Vitrolife group had shorter time in pronuclei appeare and disappear, and time of development to 3-cell and 8-cell embryos [tPNa: (7.12±2.71) h vs. (7.40±2.61) h, tPNf: (23.83±4.33) h vs. (24.21±4.74) h, t3: (35.75±6.03) h vs. (36.64±6.16) h, t4: (38.30±6.25) h vs. (38.92±6.06) h, t5: (47.59±7.85) h vs. (49.01±7.86) h, t6: (50.77±7.17) h vs. (52.12±6.99) h, t7: (53.05±6.31) h vs. (54.33±6.37) h, t8: (55.35±6.89) h vs. (56.31±6.41) h, all P<0.05]. There was no significant difference in cell cycle s2 and had a significant difference in cc2 [9.71±4.60) h vs.(10.33±4.28) h, P<0.001], synchronized in cell cycle in the sexual comparison. Cook group had a longer cell cycle, cell development time interval t5-t4 [(10.60±5.65) h vs. (11.20±5.90) h], t8-t4 [(18.45±5.76) h vs. (19.28±5.18) h] with statistically significant differences, all P<0.05, but there was no significant difference at t2 and t4-t2. Comparing the embryo development potential of the two embryo culture reagents, embryo utilization rate (59.9% vs. 63.9%, P=0.017) and day 3 (D3) high-quality embryo rate (65.4% vs. 69.5%, P=0.011) in Cook group were higher than those in Vitrolife group. There were no significant differences in implantation rate, embryo implantation rate, blastocyst implantation rate, fertilization rate and cleavage rate ( P>0.05). The clinical pregnancy rate, the continuous pregnancy rate (OPR), the abortion rate, the delivery rate, the live birth rate, the fetal malformation rate, the male to female ratio, the embryo pregnancy rate, and the blastocyst pregnancy rate were not statistically different ( P>0.05). Conclusion:According to the actual situation of the center, each center should find out the embryo time kinetic parameters suitable for the embryo culture reagent of the center, and establish the selection standard of the best embryo culture reagent, so as to improve the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate of the patients in the center.
