Search

STUDY QUESTION Can use of a commercially available time-lapse algorithm for Day 5 blastocyst selection improve pregnancy rates compared with morphology alone? SUMMARY ANSWER The use of a time-lapse selection model to choose blastocysts for fresh single embryo transfer on Day 5 did not improve ongoing pregnancy rate compared to morphology alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence from time-lapse monitoring suggests correlations between timing of key developmental events and embryo viability. No good quality evidence exists to support improved pregnancy rates following time-lapse selection. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial including 776 randomized patients was performed between 2018 and 2021. Patients with at least two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 were allocated by a computer randomization program in a proportion of 1:1 into either the control group, whereby single blastocysts were selected for transfer by morphology alone, or the intervention group whereby final selection was decided by a commercially available time-lapse model. The embryologists at the time of blastocyst morphological scoring were blinded to which study group the patients would be randomized, and the physician and patients were blind to which group they were allocated until after the primary outcome was known. The primary outcome was number of ongoing pregnancies in the two groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS From 10 Nordic IVF clinics, 776 patients with a minimum of two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 (D5) were randomized into one of the two study groups. A commercial time-lapse model decided the final selection of blastocysts for 387 patients in the intervention (time-lapse) group, and blastocysts with the highest morphological score were transferred for 389 patients in the control group. Only single embryo transfers in fresh cycles were performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE In the full analysis set, the ongoing pregnancy rate for the time-lapse group was 47.4% (175/369) and 48.1% (181/376) in the control group. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups: mean difference −0.7% (95% CI −8.2, 6.7, P = 0.90). Pregnancy rate (60.2% versus 59.0%, mean difference 1.1%, 95% CI −6.2, 8.4, P = 0.81) and early pregnancy loss (21.2% versus 18.5%, mean difference 2.7%, 95% CI −5.2, 10.6, P = 0.55) were the same for the time-lapse and the control group. Subgroup analyses showed that patient and treatment characteristics did not significantly affect the commercial time-lapse model D5 performance. In the time-lapse group, the choice of best blastocyst changed on 42% of occasions (154/369, 95% CI 36.9, 47.2) after the algorithm was applied, and this rate was similar for most treatment clinics. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION During 2020, the patient recruitment rate slowed down at participating clinics owing to coronavirus disease-19 restrictions, so the target sample size was not achieved as planned and it was decided to stop the trial prematurely. The study only investigated embryo selection at the blastocyst stage on D5 in fresh IVF transfer cycles. In addition, only blastocysts of good morphological quality were considered for transfer, limiting the number of embryos for selection in both groups: also, it could be argued that this manual preselection of blastocysts limits the theoretical selection power of time-lapse, as well as restricting the results mainly to a good prognosis patient group. Most patients were aimed for blastocyst stage transfer when a minimum of five zygotes were available for extended culture. Finally, the primary clinical outcome evaluated was pregnancy to only 6–8 weeks. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The study suggests that time-lapse selection with a commercially available time-lapse model does not increase chance of ongoing pregnancy after single blastocyst transfer on Day 5 compared to morphology alone. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was financed by a grant from the Swedish state under the ALF-agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils (ALFGBG-723141). Vitrolife supported the study with embryo culture dishes and culture media. During the study period, T.H. changed his employment from Livio AB to Vitrolife AB. All other authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03445923. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 26 February 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 11 June 2018.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) is arguably the most effective embryo selection strategy. Nevertheless, it requires greater workload, costs, and expertise. Therefore, a quest towards user-friendly, non-invasive strategies is ongoing. Although insufficient to replace PGT-A, embryo morphological evaluation is significantly associated with embryonic competence, but scarcely reproducible. Recently, artificial intelligence-powered analyses have been proposed to objectify and automate image evaluations. iDAScore v1.0 is a deep-learning model based on a 3D convolutional neural network trained on time-lapse videos from implanted and non-implanted blastocysts. It is a decision support system for ranking blastocysts without manual input. This retrospective, pre-clinical, external validation included 3604 blastocysts and 808 euploid transfers from 1232 cycles. All blastocysts were retrospectively assessed through the iDAScore v1.0; therefore, it did not influence embryologists’ decision-making process. iDAScore v1.0 was significantly associated with embryo morphology and competence, although AUCs for euploidy and live-birth prediction were 0.60 and 0.66, respectively, which is rather comparable to embryologists’ performance. Nevertheless, iDAScore v1.0 is objective and reproducible, while embryologists’ evaluations are not. In a retrospective simulation, iDAScore v1.0 would have ranked euploid blastocysts as top quality in 63% of cases with one or more euploid and aneuploid blastocysts, and it would have questioned embryologists’ ranking in 48% of cases with two or more euploid blastocysts and one or more live birth. Therefore, iDAScore v1.0 may objectify embryologists’ evaluations, but randomized controlled trials are required to assess its clinical value.

Abstract Purpose Developing optimized techniques for the isolation of human spermatozoa possessing low levels of DNA damage is an important objective for the ART industry. The purpose of this study was to compare a novel electrophoretic system (Felix™) of sperm isolation with a conventional method involving density gradient centrifugation (DGC). Methods Five international ART Centres in Australia, India, Sweden, the USA, and China have collaborated in order to compare the quality of the sperm populations isolated by Felix™ and DGC in terms of processing time, sperm concentration, motility, vitality, and DNA integrity as assessed by 3 methods: SCSA, Halo, and TUNEL. Results Across all centers, 112 comparisons were performed. Although significant differences were noted between centers in terms of the quality of the semen samples subjected for analysis, overall, both methods were equally capable of isolating populations of spermatozoa exhibiting high levels of vitality and progressive motility. The absolute numbers of spermatozoa recovered were significantly (p p p Conclusions The Felix™ device is a positive technical development capable of isolating suspensions of highly motile spermatozoa exhibiting low levels of DNA damage in a fraction of the time taken by conventional procedures such as DGC.