medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2020, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2020; 88 (08)

A combined in-vitro fertilization strategy: minimal stimulation IVF, PGT-A and SET. Results from 3 years’ experience at two IVF centers in Mexico

Sánchez-González CM, Aguinaga-Ríos M, García-Sánchez R, Sánchez-González D, Guarneros-Valdovinos R, Chávez-Badiola A

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 508-516
PDF size: 242.56 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate results of a combined approach in IVF, using minimal stimulation, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, and single blastocyst transfer.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study over a three years’ period in two fertility centers in Mexico. A total of 125 patients were included, between 25 and 45 years old, with minimal stimulation IVF, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and single euploid embryo transfer. PGT was performed using microarrays and next generation sequencing (NGS).
Results: A total of 175 cycles (mean age: 39 years old) were analyzed in 125 patients. On average, five eggs were collected per cycle; fertilization rate was 86.57%; blastocyst rate was 50.7% per fertilized egg. Only 33% of embryos were euploid. Pregnancy rate per transferred embryo was 71%. Live birth rate was 60.8% (42 births).
Conclusions: A combination of minimal stimulation, PGT-A and single blastocyst embryo transfer can yield a high live birth rate.


REFERENCES

  1. Edwards RG. IVF, IVM, natural cycle IVF, minimal stimulation IVF – time for a rethink. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2007; 15 (1): 106-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1472-6483(10)60699-2

  2. Penzias A, et al. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107 (4): 901-903. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2017.02.107.

  3. ASRM Practice Committee. Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using ivf with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: A guideline. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109: 993-99. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.019.

  4. Zhang JJ, et al. Minimal stimulation IVF vs conventional IVF: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214 (1): 96.e1-96.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.009.

  5. Baart EB, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22 (4): 980-8. doi: 10.1093/humrep/del484

  6. Sullivan EA, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: Assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28 (5): 1375-90. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew082.

  7. Forman EJ, et al. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: Single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (2): 157.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j. ajog.2013.10.016.

  8. Klitzman R. Deciding how many embryos to transfer: ongoing challenges and dilemmas. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 3: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2016.07.001.

  9. Niederberger C, et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (2): 185-324.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.005.

  10. Ferraretti AP, et al. Trends over 15 years in ART in Europe: an analysis of 6 million cycles†. Hum Reprod Open 2017; 2: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hox012.

  11. ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Hum Reprod Open 2017; 2017: hox011. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hox017.

  12. Mancuso AC, et al. Elective single embryo transfer in women less than age 38 years reduces multiple birth rates, but not live birth rates, in United States fertility clinics. Fertil Steril 2016; 106: 1107-14. doi: 10.1016/j. fertnstert.2016.06.017.

  13. Ebner T, et al. Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 251-62. doi1:0.1093/humupd/dmg021

  14. Gardner DK, et al. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 1998; 69 (1): 84-8. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(97)00438-x.

  15. Rhenman A, et al. Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30 (1): 28-36. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu295.

  16. Alfarawati S, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95 (2): 520-4. doi:10.1016/j. fertnstert.2010.04.003.

  17. Chamayou S, et al. The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013; 30 (5): 703-10. doi: 10.1007/s10815- 013-9992-2.

  18. Scott RT, et al. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: A randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100 (3): 624-30. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2013.04.039.

  19. Tan Y, et al. Clinical outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening using next generation sequencing. Gigascience. 2014; 3 (1): 30. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-3-30.

  20. Fiorentino F, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29 (12): 2802-13. doi: 10.1093/ humrep/deu277.

  21. Rubio C, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107 (5): 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011.

  22. Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: Back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29 (9): 1846-50. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011

  23. López-Rioja MJ, et al. Estudio genético preimplantación para aneuploidias: resultados de la transición entre diferentes tecnologías. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2018; 86 (2): 96-107. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v86i2.1634

  24. Kuwayama M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos: The Cryotop method. Theriogenology. 2007; 67 (1): 73-80. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.014

  25. Hardarson T, et al. The blastocyst. Hum Reprod. 2012;27 Suppl 1: i72-91. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des230.

  26. Zegers-Hochschild F, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32 (9): 1786-801. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005.

  27. Sunkara SK, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: An analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26 (7): 1768-74. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der106.

  28. Zhang J, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation (mini-IVF) for IVF utilizing vitrification and cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 21 (4): 485-95. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.033.

  29. Teramoto S, Kato O. Minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a large-scale retrospective study. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15: 134-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1472-6483(10)60701-8

  30. Friedenthal J, et al. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109 (4): 627-32. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.017.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com