Features of the ploidy status of embryos cultured using traditional and time-lapse technology (TLT) in women of optimal and older reproductive age

• Ksenia V. Krasnopolskaya
• Anastasia A. Samoilova
• Irina Yu. Ershova
• Kamila M. Isakova
• Aglaya L. Konkova
• Tatiana V. Bocharova

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of traditional and time-lapse technologies (TLT) for culturing embryos on their ploidy status according to PGT-A data, taking into account the age of the women examined.

Material and methods. 581 blastocysts grown in either a traditional CO2 incubator Binder CB 150 (n=338) or in a time-lapse incubator EmbryoScope + ES-P1 (n=243) were studied using PGT-A, NGS. Of the total number of blastocysts tested, 88 were obtained from women under 36 years of age and 493 from women over 36 years of age.

Results. When using traditional and time-lapse cell culture technologies, the frequency of generation of euploid blastocysts did not differ significantly in cohorts of embryos obtained from women under 36 years of age (70.9 vs 78.9%, p=0.412) and over 36 years of age (40.8 vs 46.9%, p=0.425). Among embryos from women over 36 years of age, in comparison with embryos from younger patients, there was a significant decrease (by approximately 20%) in the proportion of euploid blastocysts suitable for transfer when using both traditional cultivation (p=0.004) and TLT (p<0.001).

Conclusion. The use of time-lapse cell culture technology in comparison with traditional methodology does not reduce the frequency of embryonic aneuploidy. It seems justified to give priority to PGT-A for women of older reproductive age, since they have a significant increase in the proportion of aneuploid embryos, regardless of characteristics of cell incubators used.

Keywords: infertility; time-lapse cell culture technology; blastocysts; preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

REFERENCES

1. Gleicher N., Albertini D.F., Barad D.H., Homer H., Modi D., Murtinger M., et al.; International Do Not Harm Group in IVF (IDNHG-IVF). The 2019 PGDIS position statement on transfer of mosaic embryos within a context of new information on PGT-A. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020; 18 (1): 57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-020-00616-w

2. Webster A., Schuh M. Mechanism of aneuploidy in human eggs. Trends Cell Biol. 2017; 27 (1): 55–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2016.09.002

3. McKinlay Gardner R.J., Amor D.J. Gardner and Sutherland’s chromosome abnormalities and genetic counseling. In: Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199329007.001.0001

4. Gardner D., Schoolcraft W., Wagley L., Schlenker T., Stevens J., Hesla J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in IVF. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13 (12): 3434–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.12.3434

5. Hollands P. The Fertility Promise: the Facts Behind in vitro Fertilisation (IVF). Bentham Science Publishers, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/9789815040289121010013

6. Aparicio-Ruiz B., Romany L., Meseguer M. Selection of preimplantation embryos using time-lapse microscopy in in vitro fertilization: state of the technology and future directions. Birth Defects Res. 2018; 110 (8): 648–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1226

7. ESHRE Working Group on Time-Lapse Technology; Apter S., Ebner T., Freour T., Guns Y., Kovacic B., Le Clef N., et al. Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 2020 (2): hoaa008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa008

8. Yang Q., Zhu L., Wang M., Huang B., Li Z., Hu J., et al. Analysis of maturation dynamics and developmental competence of in vitro matured oocytes under time-lapse monitoring. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021; 19: 183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00868-0

9. Jin L., Dong X., Tan W., Huang B. Incidence, dynamics and recurrences of reverse cleavage in aneuploid, mosaic and euploid blastocysts, and its relationship with embryo quality. J Ovarian Res. 2022; 15 (1): 91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-022-01026-9

10. Athayde Wirka K., Chen A.A., Conaghan J., Ivani K., Gvakharia M., Behr B., et al. Atypical embryo phenotypes identified by time-lapse microscopy: high prevalence and association with embryo development. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101 (6): 1637–48.e1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.02.050

11. Soukhov E., Karavani G., Szaingurten-Solodkin I., Alfayumi-Zeadna S., Elharar G., Richter D., et al. Prediction of embryo implantation rate using a sole parameter of timing of starting blastulation. Zigote. 2022; 30 (4): 501–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199421000952

12. Ahlström A., Lundin K., Lind A.-K., Gunnarsson K., Westlander G., Park H., et al. A double-blind randomized controlled trial investigating a time-lapse algorithm for selecting Day 5 blastocysts for transfer. Hum Reprod. 2022; 37 (4): 708–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac020

13. Reignier A., Lefebvre T., Loubersac S., Lammers J., Barriere P., Freour T. Time-lapse technology improves total cumulative live birth rate and shortens time to live birth as compared to conventional incubation system in couples undergoing ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38 (4): 917–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02099-z

14. Storr A., Venetis C.A., Cooke S., Susetio D., Kilani S., Ledger W. Morphokinetic parameters using time-lapse technology and day 5 embryo quality: a prospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32 (7): 1151–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0534-y

15. Racowsky C., Kovacs P., Martins W.P. A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32 (7): 1025–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0510-6

16. Boueilh T., Reignier A., Barriere P., Freour T. Time-lapse imaging systems in IVF laboratories: a French national survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018; 35 (12): 2181–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1302-6

17. Ciray H.N., Campbell A., Agerholm I.E., Aguilar J., Chamayou S., Esbert M., et al.; Time-Lapse User Group. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29 (12): 2650–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humper/deu278

18. Rubio I., Galan A., Larreategui Z., Ayerdi F., Bellver J., Herrero J., et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102 (5): 1287–94.e5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.738

19. Lundin K., Ahlstrome A. Quality control and standardization of embryo morphology scoring and viability markers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015; 31 (4): 459–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.06.026

20. Adamyan L.V., Pivazyan L.G., Krylova E.I., Obosyan L.B., Sarkisova A.I., Nikiforova P.O. The use of time-lapse technology in the process of cultivation, evaluation and selection of embryos during IVF and ICSI procedures: a systematic review. Problemy reproduktsii [Problems of Reproduction]. 2023; 29 (2): 14–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17116/repro29232902114 (in Russian)

21. Meseguer M., Hilligsoe K.M., Pedersen K.S., Herrero J., Tejera A., Garrido N. Pregnancy rates after incubation in new time-lapse incubator (embryoscope) providing detailed information about embryo development compared to incubation in a standard incubator. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94 (4): S150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.07.603

22. Cruz M., Gadea B., Garrido N., Pedersen K.S., Martínez M., Pérez-Cano I.,et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011; 28 (7): 569–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9549-1

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)