Pronuclear morphology evaluation in in vitro fertilization (IVF) / intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a retrospective clinical review

Journal of Ovarian Research

Giovanni Battista La Sala¹  Stefano Palomba¹  Leonardo De Pascalis²  Daria Morini¹  Maria Teresa Villani¹  Barbara Valli¹  Ilaria Rondini¹  Francesco Capodanno¹  Alessia Nicoli¹ 

[1] Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Pediatrics, Sterility Centre P. Bertocchi, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, A.O. S.Maria Nuova, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia and University of Modena, Reggio Emilia, Italy;Department of Psycology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

关键词: Live-birth;    Pronuclear morphology;    Pregnancy;    ICSI;    IVF;    Embryo morphology;   

Others  :  814034
DOI  :  10.1186/1757-2215-6-1

 received in 2012-09-21, accepted in 2012-12-15,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The assessment of the embryo quality is crucial to maintain an high pregnancy rate and to reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy. The evaluation of the pronuclear and nucleolar characteristics of human zygote have been proposed as an indicator of embryo development and chromosomal complement. The aim of the current study was to assess the role of pronuclear morphology evaluation in vitro fertilization (IVF) / intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

Methods

Retrospective clinical analysis on 755 non-elective transfers of only one embryo (ET). Embryo assessment was performed in days 1 and 2. Clinical and biological data were recorded and analyzed according to embryo and/or pronuclear morphology.

Results

Both pronuclear and embryo morphology were significantly related to clinical pregnancy and live-birth rates. No significant difference in clinical pregnancy and live-birth rates was detected when the pronuclear and embryo morphology assessments were combined. Embryo morphology and maternal age were the only independent predictors of favorable outcome by logistic regression analysis.

Conclusions

Pronuclear evaluation is effective to select the best zygotes if ET is performed at day 1, whereas it did not improve the clinical outcomes when combined with embryo morphology evaluation in day 2.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Nicoli et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Alpha Scientist in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology: The Istambul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011, 26:1270-1283.
• [2]Hardarson T, Ahlström A, Rogberg L, Botros L, Hillensjö T, Westlander G, et al.: Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of Day 2 and 5 embryo culture medium: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2012, 27:89-96.
• [3]Uyar A, Seli E: Embryo assessment strategies and their validation for clinical use: a critical analysis of methodology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2012, 24:141-150.
• [4]Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Fortini D, Greco N: Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril 2003, 80:341-349.
• [5]Scott L: Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Reprod Biomed Online 2003, 6:201-214.
• [6]Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM, Price TM, Jamison MG, Walmer DK: Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. Fertil Steril 2005, 84:900-909.
• [7]Chen C, Kattera S: Comparison of pronuclear zygote morphology and early cleavage status of zygotes as additional criteria in the selection of day 3 embryos: a randomized study. Fertil Steril 2006, 85:347-352.
• [8]Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Borghi E, Ermini B: Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Hum Reprod 2007, 22:241-249.
• [9]Alvarez C, Taronger R, García-Garrido C, de González MG: Zygote score and status 1 or 2 days after cleavage and assisted reproduction outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008, 101:16-20.
• [10]Maille L, Bergere M, Lemoine E, Camier B, Prevost JF, Bourdrel JM, Hammoud I, Selva J, Vialard F: Pronuclear morphology differs between women more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age. Reprod Biomed Online 2009, 18:367-373.
• [11]Zamora RB, Sánchez RV, Pérez JG, Díaz RR, Quintana DB, Bethencourt JC: Human zygote morphological indicators of higher rate of arrest at the first cleavage stage. Zygote 2010, 27:1-6.
• [12]James AN, Hennessy S, Reggio B, Wiemer K, Larsen F, Cohen J: The limited importance of pronuclear scoring of human zygotes. Hum Reprod 2006, 21:1599-1604.
• [13]Nicoli A, Valli B, Di Girolamo R, Di Tommaso B, Gallinelli A, La Sala GB: Limited importance of pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) in assisted reproduction outcome in the absence of embryo cryopreservation. Fertil Steril 2007, 88:1167-1173.
• [14]Weitzman VN, Schnee-Riesz J, Benadiva C, Nulsen J, Siano L, Maier D: Predictive value of embryo grading for embryos with known outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010, 93:658-662.
• [15]Bar-Yoseph H, Levy A, Sonin Y, Alboteanu S, Levitas E, Lunenfeld E, Har-Vardi I: Morphological embryo assessment: reevaluation. Fertil Steril 2011, 95:1624-1628.
• [16]World Health Organization: Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 4th edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
• [17]Nicoli A, Capodanno F, Moscato L, Rondini I, Villani MT, Tuzio A, La Sala GB: Analysis of pronuclear zygote configurations in 459 clinical pregnancies obtained with assisted reproductive technique procedures. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010, 8:77. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van-Steirteghem AC: Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of a single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992, 340:17-18.
• [19]Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B: The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod 2000, 15:2394-2403.
• [20]Salumets A, Hydén-Granskog C, Suikkari AM, Tiitinen A, Tuuri T: The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2001, 16:2177-2181.
• [21]Racowsky C, Ohno-Machado L, Kim J, Biggers JD: Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day? Hum Reprod 2009, 24:2104-2113.
• [22]Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Royere D: Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod 2007, 22:1973-1981.
• [23]Montag M, Liebenthron J, Köster M: Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development? Placenta 2011, 32:S252-S256.