ESHRE Clinical Embryologist certification: the first 10 years.

STUDY QUESTION: What has the ESHRE programme 'ESHRE Certification for Clinical Embryologists' achieved after 10 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The post-exam analysis showed a pass rate of 60% for Clinical and 50% for Senior Clinical Embryologists and a high level of internal consistency of all exams, leading to a total of 773 certified Clinical and 493 Senior Clinical Embryologists over the decade. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In an ESHRE survey on the educational and professional status of Clinical Embryology in Europe, it was found that education of laboratory personnel working in the field of assisted reproduction is highly variable between countries. In 2008, ESHRE introduced a programme, curriculum and certification in the field of Clinical Embryology. Knowledge gained by postgraduate study of recommended literature, following a clear curriculum, is verified by a written two-level exam for obtaining a certificate for Clinical (basic) or Senior Clinical (advanced) Embryologists. With a total of 1266 certificates awarded over a period of 10 years and recognition by the Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes and their Council for European Specialists Medical Assessment, the ESHRE Clinical Embryology exams have become an internationally recognized educational standard in the field of Clinical Embryology. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A retrospective analysis of all applications for ESHRE Clinical (2009-2018) and Senior Clinical Embryologist Certification (2008-2018) and exam results of the first decade was carried out by the Steering Committee for Clinical Embryologist Certification. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: A total of 2894 applications for ESHRE Certification for Clinical Embryologists and the results of 10 exams for the Clinical (1478 candidates) and 11 exams for Senior Clinical (987 candidates) levels were analysed. A detailed post-exam retrospective analysis was performed regarding difficulty, discrimination and reliability levels of 1600 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with a single best answer among four options, from eight different curriculum topics (Basic cell biology, Genetics, Developmental biology, Female reproduction, Male reproduction, IVF laboratory, Cryopreservation and Laboratory management), representing the core theoretical knowledge of Clinical Embryology. Difficulty levels of the MCQs were subsequently compared regarding each topic and each yearly exam. The participation and success rates in the ESHRE Clinical Embryology exams were also assessed in terms of the educational and geographic backgrounds of candidates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Over the 10 years studied, the mean pass rate for the Clinical Embryologist exam was 60% (range 41-86%), and for the Senior Clinical Embryologist exam was 50% (range 34-81%). On average, 63% European candidates and 35% non-European candidates passed the Clinical Embryologist exam, while 52% European candidates and 31% non-European candidates passed the Senior Clinical Embryologist exam. The candidates' educational level impacted on the success of the Clinical Embryologist exam but not of the Senior Clinical Embryologist exam. The mean difficulty indices by study topic showed that in the period of 10 years, there were no statistically significant differences between topics, for either the Clinical or Senior Clinical Embryologist exams. However, the overall exam difficulty varied between years. Reassuringly, the exam MCQ discrimination and reliability indices always showed a high level of internal consistency in all exams. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some data from the initial ESHRE certification programme were not obtained electronically, in particular data for education, implying tables and figures reflect the specified valid data periods. Several countries exhibit different study profiles for those working in ART laboratories, such that laboratory technicians/technologists predominate in some countries, while in others only biologists and medical doctors are allowed to work with human embryos. Such differences could consequently affect the exam performance of candidates from specific countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The ESHRE exams on Clinical Embryology are the most widely, internationally accepted tests of knowledge in the rapidly growing area of human reproduction. Clinical Embryology is increasingly recognized as a specific discipline for scientific staff who are collaborating closely with clinicians in managing human infertility through medically assisted reproduction. The analysis of the first 10 years of application of a two-level exam for Clinical Embryology shows a consistent high quality and reliability of the exam and MCQs used. These results represent an important follow-up of the quality of the ESHRE Certification programme for Clinical Embryologists, and convincingly position Clinical Embryology in the wider group of health disciplines that are harmonized through professional bodies such as ESHRE and European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The exams provide a clear step towards the increasing professional recognition and establishment of Clinical Embryology within health systems at both European and international level. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No competing interest. All costs of the Steering Committee meetings were covered by ESHRE.

Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015).

STUDY QUESTION: Which recommendations can be provided by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology Special Interest Group (ESHRE SIG) Embryology to support laboratory specialists in the organization and management of IVF laboratories and the optimization of IVF patient care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Structured in 13 sections, the guideline development group formulated recommendations for good practice in the organization and management of IVF laboratories, and for good practice of the specific procedures performed within the IVF laboratory. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: NA. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was produced by a group of 10 embryologists representing different European countries, settings and levels of expertise. The group evaluated the document of 2008, and based on this assessment, each group member rewrote one or more sections. Two 2-day meetings were organized during which each of the recommendations was discussed and rewritten until consensus within the guideline group was reached. After finalizing the draft, the members of the ESHRE SIG embryology were invited to review the guideline. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: NA. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides recommendations on the general organization of an IVF laboratory (staffing and direction, quality management, laboratory safety), and on the specific aspects of the procedures performed in IVF laboratories (Identification of patients and traceability of their reproductive cells, consumables, handling of biological material, oocyte retrieval, sperm preparation, insemination of oocytes, scoring for fertilization, embryo culture and transfer, and cryopreservation). A last section provides recommendations regarding an Emergency plan for IVF laboratories. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Evidence on most of the issues described is scarce, and therefore it was decided not to perform a formal search for and assessment of scientific evidence. However, recommendations published in the EUTCD and relevant and recent documents, manuals and consensus papers were taken into account when formulating the recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Despite the limitations, the guideline group is confident that this document will be helpful to directors and managers involved in the management and organization of IVF laboratories, but also to embryologists and laboratory technicians performing daily tasks. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings. The guideline group members did not receive payment. Dr Coticchio reports speaker's fees from IBSA and Cook, outside the submitted work; Dr Lundin reports grants from Vitrolife, personal fees from Merck Serono, non-financial support from Unisense, outside the submitted work; Dr. Rienzi reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from MSD, grants from GFI, outside the submitted work; the other authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

Serum biomarkers in uncontrolled no heart-beating donors may identify kidneys that will never work after transplantation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Kidneys from uncontrolled non heart-beating donors achieve a good level of renal function after transplantation. However, a number of them will never function in the recipient. Our aim was to determine if serum biomarkers associated with platelet activity, inflammation and the nitric oxide system in uncontrolled non heart-beating donors may help to predict no renal function recovery after renal transplantation. METHODS: Serum levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, intercellular cell adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), nitrite + nitrate and platelet factor-4 (PF4) were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits in 88 uncontrolled non heart-beating donors divided according to the renal functionality achieved in the recipients into functional (n = 76) and non functional (n = 12). RESULTS: Kidneys from donors with higher IL-6 levels (>900 pg/ml) were functional after transplantation. Serum cGMP levels below 372.3 fmol/l were also associated with kidneys that recovered the renal function. However, serum levels of PF4 showed the best correlation with recovery of renal functional in the recipients since they were significantly lower in the donors whose kidneys functioned after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Serum PF4 levels in uncontrolled non heart-beating donors may be a good predictor for kidneys that never will reach functional recovery. Some serum cGMP, IL-6 and IL-10 levels may simply help identify kidneys that will function after transplantation.

Evolución del método de fecundación in vitro en España: 1993-2010 / Evolution of in vitro fertilization in Spain: 1993-2010

Introducción: El objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar los cambios en el uso de la intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) en España, así como discutir las posibles causas. Métodos: Se analizaron los datos del Registro de la Sociedad Española de Fertilidad (SEF) en el uso de fecundación in vitro (FIV)/ICSI entre los años 1993-2010 con ovocitos propios y donados. Además se analizaron las causas que indicaron la FIV/ICSI y el porcentaje de ciclos realizados con ovocitos propios a mujeres mayores de 40 años. Resultados: El uso de ICSI aumentó del 4% en 1993 al 89% en 2010 en ciclos de técnicas en reproducción asistida con ovocitos propios y del 59% en 1999 al 93% en 2008 en ciclos con ovocitos donados. En el periodo 1993-2001 se observa una disminución de indicaciones de FIV/ICSI por factor femenino y un aumento por factor masculino y esterilidad de origen desconocido (EOD), pero a partir de 2001 estos porcentajes permanecen estables. Una evolución similar se observa en el porcentaje de ciclos con ovocitos propios realizados a mujeres mayores de 40 años. Conclusiones: El uso de la ICSI va en aumento, pero es difícil determinar factores clínicos específicos que expliquen estas diferencias. Dado que la ICSI no proporciona mayores tasas de embarazo que la FIV convencional en parejas cuya causa de esterilidad no sea el factor masculino y además supone un incremento en los costes, algunas parejas estériles podrían beneficiarse de un uso menos frecuente de ICSI (AU)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the changes in the use of intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) in Spain and to discuss the possible causes for these changes. Methods: We analysed the data of the Spanish Fertility Society registry on the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF)/ICSI between 1993-2010 with own and donated oocytes. We also studied the reasons for indicating IVF or ICSI and the percentage of cycles performed with own oocytes in the case of women over 40 years. Results: The use of ICSI increased from 4% in 1993 to 89% in 2010 in assisted reproductive technology cycles with own oocytes, and from 59% in 1999 to 93% in 2008 for cycles with donated oocytes. In the 1993-2001 period, a decrease was observed in the indications for IVF/ICSI due to the female factor, together with an increase in these indications due to the male factor or to infertility of unknown origin. However, these percentages have remained stable since 2001. A similar trend has been observed in the percentage of cycles with own oocytes performed with women aged over 40 years. Conclusions: The use of ICSI is increasing, although it is difficult to determine the specific clinical factors that may explain these differences. Since ICSI does not produce higher pregnancy rates than conventional IVF in couples whose cause of infertility is not the male factor and it is also more costly, some infertile couples could benefit from less frequent use of ICSI (AU)