Book contents
- Individualized In-Vitro Fertilization
- Individualized In-Vitro Fertilization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Chapter 1 Individualized Ovarian Stimulation for Normal and High Responders
- Chapter 2 Individualized Ovarian Stimulation in Patients with Advanced Maternal Age and Premature Ovarian Aging
- Chapter 3 Individualized Oocyte Maturation
- Chapter 4 Individualized Luteal Phase Support
- Chapter 5 Individualized Management of Male Infertility
- Chapter 6 Individualized Fertilization Technique in the IVF Laboratory
- Chapter 7 Individualized Genetic Testing
- Chapter 8 Individualized Embryo Selection
- Chapter 9 Preparation for Optimal Endometrial Receptivity in Cryo Cycles
- Chapter 10 Individualized Immunological Testing in Recurrent Implantation Failure
- Chapter 11 Individualized Embryo Transfer
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Chapter 8 - Individualized Embryo Selection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2021
Book contents
- Individualized In-Vitro Fertilization
- Individualized In-Vitro Fertilization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Chapter 1 Individualized Ovarian Stimulation for Normal and High Responders
- Chapter 2 Individualized Ovarian Stimulation in Patients with Advanced Maternal Age and Premature Ovarian Aging
- Chapter 3 Individualized Oocyte Maturation
- Chapter 4 Individualized Luteal Phase Support
- Chapter 5 Individualized Management of Male Infertility
- Chapter 6 Individualized Fertilization Technique in the IVF Laboratory
- Chapter 7 Individualized Genetic Testing
- Chapter 8 Individualized Embryo Selection
- Chapter 9 Preparation for Optimal Endometrial Receptivity in Cryo Cycles
- Chapter 10 Individualized Immunological Testing in Recurrent Implantation Failure
- Chapter 11 Individualized Embryo Transfer
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
It is 40 years since the birth of the first baby conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF). From then on, remarkable progress has been made in the management of infertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART). The improvements in clinical practice, such as ovarian stimulation protocols, embryo culture conditions, and vitrification protocols, have led to improved success rates globally.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Individualized In-Vitro FertilizationDelivering Precision Fertility Treatment, pp. 96 - 111Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Am, QR, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology: summary of findings for the main comparison. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;30:CD002118.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod Biomed Online 2016;32:142–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;110:1246–1252.Google Scholar
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1270–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capalbo, A, Rienzi, L, Cimadomo, D, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1173–1181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutting, R. Single embryo transfer for all. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2018;53:30–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandian, Z, Marjoribanks, J, Ozturk, O, et al. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection: summary of a Cochrane review. Fertil Steril 2014;102:345–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, D, Schaefer, GO, Tremellen, K, et al. Double trouble: should double embryo transfer be banned? Theor Med Bioeth 2015;36:121–139.Google Scholar
Harbottle, S, Hughes, C, Cutting, R, et al. Elective single embryo transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines. Hum Fertil 2015;18:165–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Geyter, C, Calhaz-Jorge, C, Kupka, MS, et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013;99:44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigalos, G, Triantafyllidou, O, Vlahos, NF. Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;294:1117–1124.Google Scholar
Scott, KL, Hong, KH, Scott, RT Jr. Selecting the optimal time to perform biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril 2013;100:608–614.Google Scholar
Dahdouh, EM, Sc, M, Balayla, J, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2015;104:1503–1512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubaldi, FM, Capalbo, A, Colamaria, S, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod 2015;30:2097–2106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, E, Illingworth, P, Wilton, L, et al. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 2015;30:473–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Rienzi, L, Navarro-Sánchez, L, et al. Embryonic cell-free DNA versus trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy testing: concordance rate and clinical implications. Fertil Steril 2019;112:510–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castelló, D, Motato, Y, Basile, N, et al. How much have we learned from time-lapse in clinical IVF? Mol Hum Reprod 2016;22:719–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Gallego, R, Remohí, J, Meseguer, M. Time-lapse imaging: the state of the art. Biol Reprod 2019;101:1146–1154.Google Scholar
Kirkegaard, K, Ahlström, A, Ingerslev, HJ, et al. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertil Steril 2015;103:323–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khosravi, P, Kazemi, E, Zhan, Q, et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. npj Digit Med 2019;2:21. doi:10.1038/s41746-019–0096-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayram, A, De Munck, N, Elkhatib, I, et al. Cleavage stage mitochondrial DNA is correlated with preimplantation human embryo development and ploidy status. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019;36:1847–1854.Google Scholar
Fragouli, E, Spath, K, Alfarawati, S, et al. Altered Levels of Mitochondrial DNA Are Associated with Female Age, Aneuploidy, and Provide an Independent Measure of Embryonic Implantation Potential. PLoS Genet 2015;11:E1005241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cecchino, GN, García-Velasco, JA. Mitochondrial DNA copy number as a predictor of embryo viability. Fertil Steril 2019;111:205–211.Google Scholar
Diez-Juan, A, Rubio, C, Marin, C, et al. DNA content as a viability score in human euploid embryos: less is better. Fertil Steril 2015;104:534–541.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.