Using the Eeva Test™ adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience

PurposeSince many transferred, good morphology embryos fail to implant, technologies to identify embryos with high developmental potential would be beneficial. The Eeva™ (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) Test, a prognostic test based on automated detection and analysis of time-lapse imaging information, has been shown to benefit embryo selection specificity for a panel of three highly experienced embryologists (Conaghan et al., 2013). Here we examined if adjunctive use of Eeva Test results following morphological assessment would allow embryologists with diverse clinical backgrounds to consistently improve the selection of embryos with high developmental potential.MethodsProspective, double-blinded multi-center study with 54 patients undergoing blastocyst transfer cycles consented to have embryos imaged using the Eeva System, which automatically measures key cell division timings and categorizes embryos into groups based on developmental potential. Five embryologists of diverse clinical practices, laboratory training, and geographical areas predicted blastocyst formation using day 3 morphology alone and day 3 morphology followed by Eeva Test results. Odds ratio (OR) and diagnostic performance measures were calculated by comparing prediction results to true blastocyst outcomes.ResultsWhen Eeva Test results were used adjunctively to traditional morphology to help predict blastocyst formation among embryos graded good or fair on day 3, the OR was 2.57 (95 % CI=1.88–3.51). The OR using morphology alone was 1.68 (95 % CI=1.29–2.19). Adjunct use of the Eeva Test reduced the variability in prediction performance across all five embryologists: the variability was reduced from a range of 1.06 (OR=1.14 to 2.20) to a range of 0.45 (OR=2.33 to 2.78).ConclusionsThe Eeva Test, an automated, time-lapse enabled prognostic test, used adjunctively with morphology, is informative in helping embryologists with various levels of experience select embryos with high developmental potential.

[1]  Samantha Duffy,et al.  Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. , 2013, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[2]  T. D’Hooghe,et al.  Computer-assisted embryo selection: a benefit in the evaluation of embryo quality? , 2011, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[3]  M. Meseguer,et al.  The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[4]  J. Harper,et al.  When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? , 2012, Human reproduction.

[5]  Jacob F Mayer,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. , 2006, Fertility and sterility.

[6]  T. Baer,et al.  Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[7]  A. Thurin-Kjellberg,et al.  Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[8]  Samantha Duffy,et al.  Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. , 2013, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[9]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  Roger A. Sugden,et al.  Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys , 1988 .

[11]  J. Segars,et al.  Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology , 2010, Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity.

[12]  M. Meseguer,et al.  Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. , 2014, Fertility and sterility.

[13]  M. Meseguer,et al.  Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging , 2011, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[14]  Alice A. Chen,et al.  Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[15]  A. Feinberg,et al.  Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. , 2004, American journal of human genetics.

[16]  Marcos Meseguer,et al.  Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  J. Dumoulin,et al.  Early cleavage is a valuable addition to existing embryo selection parameters: a study using single embryo transfers. , 2004, Human reproduction.

[18]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study , 2012, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[19]  M. Meseguer,et al.  Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[20]  K. Barnhart,et al.  Biomarkers in reproductive medicine: the promise, and can it be fulfilled? , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[21]  H. Tournaye,et al.  Elective single embryo transfer , 2008 .

[22]  A. Veiga,et al.  Elective single-embryo transfer in oocyte donation programmes: Should it be the rule? , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[23]  N. Treff,et al.  Comprehensive chromosome screening alters traditional morphology-based embryo selection: a prospective study of 100 consecutive cycles of planned fresh euploid blastocyst transfer. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[24]  T. D’Hooghe,et al.  Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos , 2009, Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E.

[25]  Michael P. Diamond,et al.  The clinical need for a method of identification of embryos destined to become a blastocyst in assisted reproductive technology cycles , 2012, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[26]  B. Horsthemke,et al.  Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. , 2005, Human reproduction update.

[27]  Elena De Ponti,et al.  Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[28]  J. Harper,et al.  The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[29]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[30]  Shehua Shen,et al.  Biomarkers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, validation, and practical application. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[31]  D. Barad,et al.  A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice , 2012, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[32]  Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[33]  Farshid Moussavi,et al.  Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage , 2012, Nature Communications.

[34]  C. Racowsky,et al.  National collection of embryo morphology data into Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System: associations among day 3 cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry, and live birth rate. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.