Time-lapse systems for ART

The KIDScore™ D3 scoring system contributes to the prediction of embryonic development potential: A promising tool for screening high-quality embryos

Using the KIDScoreTM D3 (KID3) scoring system, day 3 embryos observed by time-lapse imaging (TLI) were scored to explore the predictive value of the KID scoring system on the developmental potential of embryos. The kinetic parameters of 477 normal fertilized embryos from 77 patients who underwent TLI in our hospital from January 2019 to June 2020 were evaluated by KID3, and the embryos were divided into five groups according to the scores for retrospective analysis of blastocyst formation. Additionally, the high-quality blastocyst formation rate, pregnancy rate and early abortion rate were analyzed via KID3 and traditional morphological assessments, and comparisons of differences among different ages were also performed. In the KID3 estimate, the blastocyst or high-quality blastocyst formation rate in the score 5 group was markedly higher than that in the score 1–4 groups. Blastocyst or high-quality blastocyst formation rates in the A group (the results of two evaluation tools indicated they were excellent embryos) and the B group (KID3: excellent embryos, traditional evaluation: not excellent embryos) were evidently increased in comparison with the C or D group (KID3: not excellent embryos, traditional evaluation: excellent embryo or not, respectively). Furthermore, the percentages of score 5 embryos, blastocyst and high-quality blastocyst formation rates for patients ≥ 35 years old were markedly decreased compared with those for patients < 34 years old, while the trends of nondiploid cleavage, multinucleation and asymmetric division were the opposite. Collectively, the KID3 scoring system may be a promising predictive tool for screening embryos with better developmental potential.

Performance of Day 5 KIDScore™ morphokinetic prediction models of implantation and live birth after single blastocyst transfer

PURPOSE

While several studies reported the association between morphokinetic parameters and implantation, few predictive models were developed to predict implantation after day 5 embryo transfer, generally without external validation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the respective performance of 2 commercially available morphokinetic-based models (KIDScore™ Day 5 versions 1 and 2) for the prediction of implantation and live birth after day 5 single blastocyst transfer.

METHODS

This monocentric retrospective study was conducted on 210 ICSI cycles with single day 5 embryo transfer performed with a time-lapse imaging (TLI) system between 2013 and 2016. The association between both KIDScore™ and the observed implantation and live birth rates was calculated, as well as the agreement between embryologist's choice for transfer and embryo ranking by the models.

RESULTS

Implantation and live birth rate were both 35.7%. A significant positive correlation was found between both models and implantation rate (r = 0.96 and r = 0.90, p = 0.01) respectively. Both models had statistically significant but limited predictive power for implantation (AUC 0.60). There was a fair agreement between the embryologists' choice and both models (78% and 61% respectively), with minor differences in case of discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS

KIDScore™ Day 5 predictive models are significantly associated with implantation rates after day 5 single blastocyst transfer. However, their predictive performance remains perfectible. The use of these predictive models holds promises as decision-making tools to help the embryologist select the best embryo, ultimately facilitating the implementation of SET policy. However, embryologists' expertise remains absolutely necessary to make the final decision.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a microscope. In recent years time-lapse systems (TLS) have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a TLS include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature, and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost to ART treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers on 7 January 2019 and checked references of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, and cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (N = 2955 infertile couples). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were high risk of bias in the included studies, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency. There were no data on cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate or cumulative clinical pregnancy rate.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentIt is unclear whether there is any difference between interventions in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.23, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I² = 33%, low-quality evidence) or in miscarriage rates (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.61, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 35%, the rate with the use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 27% and 40%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 4%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 4% and 14%. It is unclear whether there is a difference between the interventions in rates of stillbirth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41, 4 RCTs, N = 875, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesAll findings for this comparison were very uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. No data were available on live birth, but one RCT reported ongoing pregnancy. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.20, 1 RCT, N = 163); miscarriage (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I² = 0%); or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I² = 0%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of ongoing pregnancy associated with TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 47%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 22% and 52%, and if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 4% and 15%. No studies reported stillbirth.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThe findings for this comparison were also very uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of live birth (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I² = 84%). There was very low-quality evidence that TLS might reduce miscarriage rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I² = 0%). It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I² = 89%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 48%, the rate with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 46% and 55%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation and assessment is 11%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 5% and 10%. No stillbirths occurred in the only study reporting this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient good-quality evidence of differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. As the evidence is of low or very low-quality, our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Time-lapse videography for embryo selection/de-selection: a bright future or fading star?

The recent clinical introduction of time-lapse videography into in vitro fertilization laboratories has offered a novel opportunity for embryologists to explore improved methods for embryo selection. While the concept of uninterrupted culture of embryos provided by such systems is welcomed, the current evidence does not support its full application in routine clinical practice. The issue of whether or not algorithms for embryo selection can be extrapolated between laboratories, which may represent a major hurdle to its wide application, is currently gaining increasing attention amongst embryologists worldwide. In this commentary issues identified in time-lapse embryo selection/de-selection algorithms, such as quantitative versus qualitative parameters, are discussed alongside the reference start point for the timing system, and types of datasets used for developing and validating time-lapse algorithms. Considering these factors, alternative future research directions which could potentially solve current issues are proposed.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a light microscope. Over recent years time-lapse systems have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a time-lapse system (TLS) include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost onto an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 2 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the following comparisons: comparing a TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth, miscarriage and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We reported quality of the evidence for important outcomes using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (N = 2303 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding of participants and researchers, and indirectness secondary to significant heterogeneity between interventions in some studies. There were no data on cumulative clinical pregnancy.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in terms of live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.13, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I² = 11% , moderate-quality evidence) and may also be no evidence of difference in miscarriage rates (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.02, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I² = 44%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 33%, the rate with use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is between 19% and 36%; and that if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 3%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 3% and 18%. There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in the stillbirth rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, N = 489, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesNo data were available on live birth or stillbirth. We are uncertain whether TLS utilising embryo selection software influences miscarriage rates (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate with embryo selection software would be between 3% and 14%.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between TLS utilising embryo selection software and conventional incubation improving live birth rates (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.54, 2 RCTs, N = 1017, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether TLS influences miscarriage rates (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.08, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with no TLS is 38%, the rate with use of conventional incubation would be between 36% and 58%, and that if miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 9%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 4% and 10%. No data on stillbirths were available. It was uncertain whether the intervention influenced clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I² = 42%, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. The studies were at high risk of bias for randomisation and allocation concealment, the result should be interpreted with extreme caution.