Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology.

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.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of day 5 morphology grading and metabolomic Viability Score on predicting implantation outcome.

PURPOSE: Assessment of embryo viability is a key component of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and currently relies largely on embryo morphology and cleavage rate. In this study, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to compare the Viability Score (generated by metabolomic profiling of spent embryo culture media using near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy) to morphologic grading for predicting pregnancy in women undergoing single embryo transfer (SET) on day 5. METHODS: A total of 198 spent embryo culture media samples were collected in four IVF centers located in the USA, Europe and Australia. First, 137 samples (training set) were analyzed by NIR to develop an algorithm that generates a Viability Score predictive of pregnancy for each sample. Next, 61 samples (validation set) were analyzed by observers blinded to embryo morphology and IVF outcome, using the Day 5 algorithm generated with the training set. Pregnancy was defined as fetal cardiac activity (FCA) at 12 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was greater for the metabolomic Viability Score compared to Morphology [Training set: 0.75 versus 0.55, p = 0.0011; Validation set: 0.68 versus 0.50, P = 0.021], and for a Composite score (obtained using a model combining Viability Score with morphologic grading), compared to morphology alone [0.74 versus 0.50, p = 0.004]. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that Viability Score alone or in combination with morphologic grading has the potential to be a better classifier for pregnancy outcome than morphology alone in women undergoing SET on day 5.