Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray–based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients

Schoolcraft, William B.; Treff, Nathan R.; Stevens, John; Ferry, K.M.; Katz‐Jaffe, Mandy G.; Scott, Richard T.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.049

Cited by 157 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2, Table 3). The superiority of implantation potential for euploid embryos regardless of patient age has been reported previously [3,16,19,27,28]. Moreover, when embryos were not screened for ploidy status the IR's were comparable in the fresh and FET cycles.…”

Section: Implantationsupporting

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43

Lee

McCulloh

Hodes-Wertz

et al. 2015

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In Vitro Fertilization is an effective treatment for infertility; however, it has relatively low success in women of advanced maternal age (>37) who have a high risk of producing aneuploid embryos, resulting in implantation failure, a higher rate of miscarriage or birth of a child with chromosome abnormalities. The purpose of this study was to compare the implantation, miscarriage and live birth rates with and without preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) of embryos from patients aged 40 through 43 years. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study, comparing embryos screened for ploidy using trophectoderm biopsy and array comparative genomic hybridization to embryos that were not screened. We compared pregnancy outcomes for traditional fresh IVF cycles with day 5 embryo transfers, Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) cycles without PGS and PGS-FET (FET of only euploid embryos) cycles of patients with maternal ages ranging from 40 to 43 years, undergoing oocyte retrievals during the period between 1/1/2011 and 12/ 31/2012. Results The implantation rate of euploid embryos transferred in FET cycles (50.9 %) was significantly greater than for unscreened embryos transferred in either fresh (23. Conclusions The present data provides evidence of the benefits of PGS with regard to improved implantation and live birth rate per embryo transferred.

show abstract

Section: Implantationsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…We would expect that the incidence of loss of implanted sacs would be significantly less in the PGS FET group as suggested by Munne et al [1] and others [28,30]. The incidence of loss of implanted sacs was not significantly different among the three groups in this study (Fig.…”

Section: Sacs Lost Per Implanted Embryosupporting

confidence: 67%

In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43

Lee

McCulloh

Hodes-Wertz

et al. 2015

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 summarizes the very limited number of reports, attempting to validate CGH in association with trophectoderm biopsy or using this clinical approach towards PGS, here given the acronym PGS#2. Despite, obviously, limited data in support, proponents of such an approach have voiced strong expectations that such an approach would, ultimately, benefit IVF outcomes [11,12,[14][15][16]31].…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice

Gleicher

Barad

2012

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The ability to perform trophectoderm biopsy 3. The ability to vitrify embryos following biopsy A clear benefit to PGS utilizing 23 chromosome pair evaluation at the trophectoderm stage has been demonstrated in multiple prospective randomized trials [15][16][17][18][19][20]. Additionally, the use of embryo vitrification following PGS biopsy has allowed the process of PGS to be performed with much more flexibility, leading to increased utilization of the technology, particularly in the USA.…”

Section: Pgs: Current Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?

Brezina

Anchan

Kearns

2016

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of the review was to define the various diagnostic platforms currently available to perform preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and describe in a clear and balanced manner the various strengths and weaknesses of these technologies. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted. We used the terms "preimplantation genetic testing," "preimplantation genetic diagnosis," "preimplantation genetic screening, " "preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy," "PGD," "PGS," and "PGD-A" to search through PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from the year 2000 to April 2016. Bibliographies of articles were also searched for relevant studies. When possible, larger randomized controlled trials were used. However, for some emerging data, only data from meeting abstracts were available. Results PGS is emerging as one of the most valuable tools to enhance pregnancy success with assisted reproductive technologies. While all of the current diagnostic platforms currently available have various advantages and disadvantages, some platforms, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), are capable of evaluating far more data points than has been previously possible. The emerging complexity of different technologies, especially with the utilization of more sophisticated tools such as NGS, requires an understanding by clinicians in order to request the best test for their patients.. Conclusion Ultimately, the choice of which diagnostic platform is utilized should be individualized to the needs of both the clinic and the patient. Such a decision must incorporate the risk tolerance of both the patient and provider, fiscal considerations, and other factors such as the ability to counsel patients on their testing results and how these may or may not impact clinical outcomes.

show abstract

Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray–based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients

Cited by 157 publications

References 15 publications

In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43

In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43

A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About