Purpose: To report a comparison of growth rates between fresh and frozen-thawed embryos on day 3 and 4 according to chromosomal status during PGD.
Methods: Embryos were biopsied on day 3, fluorescent in situ hybridization performed for aneuploidy detection and growth rates monitored.
Results: Based on 241 egg pick up-PGD and 133 frozen embryo transfer-PGD cycles. The development rate of embryos despite their chromosomal status was similar on day 3, however, overall, fresh embryos showed a significantly improved development (≥6 cell stage; 85.7%) compared to frozen embryos (77.0%; p < 0.003). On day 4 fresh embryos showed accelerated development and further developmental improvements were associated with chromosomal normality (56.1% normal vs. 42.2% aneuploid; p < 0.004).
Conclusions: Cryopreservation slows embryo development regardless of the chromosomal status. However, chromosomal status did not influence the chance of embryo implantation which was the same for fresh and thawed embryos.
Chromosomal status fresh embryos frozen embryos growth rates
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F: Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 1987;2:705–708PubMedGoogle Scholar
Claman P, Armant DR, Seibel MM, Wang TA, Oskowitz SP, Taymor ML: The impact of embryo quality and quantity on implantation and the establishment of viable pregnancies. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1987;4:218–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
Eranus M, Zouves C, Rajamahendran M, Lueng S, Fluker M, Gomel V: The effect of embryo quality on subsequent pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991;56:707–710Google Scholar
Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG: The cumulative embryo score: A predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 1992;7:117–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J, Roulier R: Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: Based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2427–2431PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN: Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: How to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1545–1549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC: Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1513–1521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ziebe S, Bech B, Petersen K, Mikkelsen AL, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN: Resumption of mitosis during post-thaw culture: A key parameter in selecting the right embryos for transfer. Hum Reprod 1998;13:178–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Edgar DH, Bourne H, Speirs AL, McBain JC: A quantitative analysis of the impact of cryopreservation on the implantation potential of human early cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2000;15:175–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Gardner DK, Lane M: Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: A feasible proposition for human IVF. Hum Reprod Update 1997;3:367–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Neuber E, Rinaudo P, Trimarchi JR, Sakkas D: Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1307–1312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G: Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: A review. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:251–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Magli MC, Jones GM, Grass L, Gianaroli L, Korman I, Trounson AO: Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1781–1786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, Calderon G, Cohen J, Munne S: Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1954–1958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Munne S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J: Embryo morphology, developmental rates and maternal age are related with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995;64:382–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
Allan J, Edirisinghe R, Anderson J, Jemmott R, Nandini AV, Gattas M: Dilemmas encountered with preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;44:117–123Google Scholar
Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A: Chromosomal mosaicism throughout human preimplantation development in vitro: Incidence, type, and relevance to embryo outcome. Hum Reprod 2002;17:413–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Los FJ, Van Opstal D, Van den Berg C: The development of cytogenetically normal, abnormal and mosaic embryos: A theoretical model. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10:79–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Tao J, Tamis R, Fink K, Williams B, Nelson-White T, Craig R: The neglected morula/compact stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1513–1518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Archer J, Gook DA, Edgar DH: Blastocyst formation and cell numbers in human frozen-thawed embryos following extended culture. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1669–1673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
ESHRE PGD Consotium Steering Committee. ESHRE preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) consortium: Data collection II (May 2000). Hum Reprod 2000;15:2673–2683Google Scholar
Sher G, Keskintepe L, Nouriani M, Roussev R, Batzofin, J: Expression of sHLA-G in supernatants of individually cultured 46-h embryos: A potentially valuable indicator of “embryo competency” and IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:74–78PubMedGoogle Scholar