Panminerva Medica 2022 Feb 18

DOI: 10.23736/S0031-0808.22.04680-8

Copyright © 2022 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Oocyte quality and embryo selection strategies: a review for the embryologists, by the embryologists

Christina ANAGNOSTOPOULOU ¹, Israel M. ROSAS ², Neha SINGH ³, Nivita GUGNANI ^{4, 5}, Annapoorani CHOCKALINGHAM ⁶, Keerti SINGH ⁷, Dimple DESAI ⁸, Mahsa DARBANDI ^{9, 10}, Madhumitha MANOHARAN ¹¹, Sara DARBANDI ^{9, 10}, Sofia I. LEONARDI DIAZ ¹², Sajal GUPTA ¹³, Ralf HENKEL ^{13, 14, 15, 16}, Hassan N. SALLAM ¹⁷, Florence BOITRELLE ^{18, 19}, Kelly A. WIRKA ²⁰, Ashok AGARWAL ¹³ ✉

¹ Reproductive Medicine Unit - Embryo ART, Lito Maternity Hospital, Athens, Greece; ² Citmer Reproductive Medicine, IVF LAB, Mexico City, Mexico; ³ NOVA IVF, Gorakhpur, India; ⁴ Milann-The Fertility Centre, Delhi, India; ⁵ All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India; ⁶ Gene2Genome, Jacksonville, FL, USA; ⁷ Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados; ⁸ DPU IVF & ENDOSCOPY CENTER, Dr. D. Y. Patil Hospital & Research Centre, Pune, India; ⁹ Fetal Health Research Center, Hope Generation Foundation, Tehran, Iran; ¹⁰ Gene Therapy and Regenerative Medicine Research Center, Hope Generation Foundation, Tehran, Iran; ¹¹ AlphaLife Fertility and Women's Center, Salem, India; ¹² Hospital Publico Materno Infantil, Salta, Argentina; ¹³ American Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA; ¹⁴ Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK; ¹⁵ Department of Medical Bioscience, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa; ¹⁶ Logix X Pharma, Theale, Berkshire, UK; ¹⁷ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Alexandria University Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria, Egypt; ¹⁸ Reproductive Biology, Fertility Preservation, Andrology, CECOS, Poissy Hospital, Poissy, France; ¹⁹ Department of Biology, Reproduction, Epigenetics, Environment and Development, ParisSaclay University, UVSQ, INRAE, BREED, Jouyen-Josas, France; ²⁰ Fertility & Endocrinology, Medical Affairs, EMD Serono, USA

With the advance of assisted reproduction techniques, and the trend towards blastocyst culture and single embryo transfer, gamete and embryo assessment have gained greater importance in ART treatment. Embryo quality depends mainly on gamete quality and culture conditions. Oocyte maturity identification is necessary in order to plan fertilization timing. Mature oocytes at the metaphase II stage show a higher fertilization rate compared to immature oocytes. Morphology assessment is a critical yet challenging task that may serve as a good prognostic tool for future development and implantation potential if done effectively. Various grading systems have been suggested to assess embryos at pronuclear, cleavage, and blastocyst stages. By identifying the embryo with the highest implantation potential, it is possible to reduce the number of embryos transferred without compromising the chances of a successful pregnancy. Apart from the conventional morphology assessment, there are several invasive or non-invasive methods for embryo selection such as preimplantation genetic testing, morphokinetics, proteomics, metabolomics, oxygen consumption, and measurement of oxidative stress in culture medium. Morphokinetics is a method based on time-lapse technology and continuous monitoring of embryos. In this review, we aim to describe and compare the most effective and widely used methods for gamete and embryo assessment as well as embryo selection.

KEY WORDS: In vitro fertilization; Oocyte competence; Oocyte maturation; Conventional morphological assessment; Time-lapse microscopy; Morphokinetic parameters; Embryo selection