Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology

Kirstine Kirkegaard, Aishling Ahlström, Hans Jakob Ingerslev, Thorir Hardarson

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

113 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Within the past few years the morphological evaluation of in vitro fertilized embryos has been extended to include continuous surveillance, enabled by the introduction of time-lapse incubators developed specifically for IVF treatment. As a result time-lapse monitoring has been implemented in many clinics worldwide. The proposed benefits compared with culture in a standard incubator and fixed time-point evaluation are uninterrupted culture, a flexible workflow in the laboratory, and improved embryo selection. The latter is based on the reasonable assumption that more frequent observations will provide substantially more information on the relationship between development, timing, and embryo viability. Several retrospective studies have confirmed a relationship between time-lapse parameters and embryo viability evaluated by developmental competence, aneuploidy, and clinical pregnancy. Furthermore a much anticipated randomized study has shown improved pregnancy rates (PRs) after culture in a time-lapse incubator combined with selection using a hierarchical time-lapse selection model. At present this is the only randomized study on possible benefits of time lapse in human embryology. Strict evidence may still seem too weak to introduce time lapse in routine clinical setting. This aim of this review is therefore to perform a balanced discussion of the evidence for time-lapse monitoring.

Original languageEnglish
JournalFertility and Sterility
Pages (from-to)323-32
Number of pages10
ISSN0015-0282
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2015

Keywords

  • ART
  • Embryo selection
  • Human
  • Time-lapse monitoring

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this