Evaluating the value of day 0 of an ICSI cycle on indicating laboratory outcome.

A number of oocyte characteristics have been associated with fertilization, implantation and live-birth rates, albeit without reaching a consensus. This study aims to delineate possible associations between oocyte characteristics, oocyte behavior during intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), fertilization potential, and laboratory outcomes. Four-hundred and seventy-seven patients, yielding 3452 oocytes, were enrolled in this prospective observational study from 2015 to 2018. Οoplasm granularity was associated with poor embryo quality and higher probabilities of post-ICSI oocytes and embryos discarded in any developmental stage and never selected for embryo transfer or cryopreservation (p < 0.001). Both sudden or difficult ooplasm aspiration, and high or lack of resistance during ICSI were associated with either a poor Zygote-Score or fertilization failure (p < 0.001). Sudden or difficult ooplasm aspiration and high resistance during ICSI penetration were positively associated with resulting to a post-ICSI oocyte or embryo that would be selected for discard. Evaluation of oocyte characteristics and oocyte behavior during ICSI may provide early information regarding laboratory and cycle outcomes. Particularly, ooplasm granularity, and fragmentation of polar body, along with sudden or difficult ooplasm aspiration and high or lack of resistance during ICSI penetration may hinder the outcome of an ICSI cycle. The associations presented herein may contribute towards development of a grading system or a prediction model. Taking into account information on oocytes and ICSI behavior may effectively assist in enhancing IVF outcome rates.

Discarding IVF embryos: reporting on global practices.

PURPOSE: To provide a global scale report on a representative sample of the clinical embryology community depicting the practice of discarding supernumerary IVF embryos. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire titled "Anonymous questionnaire on embryo disposal practices" was designed in order to ensure anonymous participation of practicing clinical embryologists around the world. RESULTS: During a data collection period of 8 months, 703 filled-in questionnaires from 65 countries were acquired. According to the data acquired, the majority of practitioners, dispose of embryos by placing them directly in a trash can strictly dedicated for embryo disposal for both fresh and frozen cycles (39% and 36.7% respectively). Moreover, 66.4% of practitioners discard the embryos separately-case by case-at different time points during the day. Over half of embryologists (54%) wait until day 6 to discard the surplus embryos, while 65.5% do not implement a specially allocated incubator space as a designated waiting area prior to disposal. The majority of 63.1% reported that this is a witnessed procedure. The vast majority of embryologists (93%) do not employ different protocols for different groups of patients. Nonetheless, 17.8% reported the request to perform a ceremony for these embryos. Assessing the embryologists' perspective, 59.5% of participants stated that the embryology practice would benefit from a universally accepted and practiced protocol. CONCLUSION(S): This study uniquely provides insight into global embryo disposal practices and trends. Results highlight the divergence between reported practices, while indicating the significance on standardization of practice, with embryologists acknowledging the need for a universally accepted protocol implementation.

Should the flexibility enabled by performing a day-4 embryo transfer remain as a valid option in the IVF laboratory? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The present systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to uniquely bring to literature data supporting the true place of the alternative practice of day-4 embryo transfer (D4 ET) in an IVF laboratory, beyond the one-dimensional option of facilitating a highly demanding program. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the databases of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library, resulting to six prospective along with nine retrospective cohort studies meeting eligibility criteria for inclusion. A comparison of D4 ET with day-2 (D2), day-3 (D3), and day-5 (D5) ET, respectively, was performed employing R statistics. RESULTS: The sourced results indicate no statistically significant difference regarding clinical pregnancy rates, and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates stemming from the comparison of D4 with D2, D4 with D3, and D4 with D5 ET, respectively. Additionally, no statistically significant difference could be established in respect to cancelation, and miscarriage rates, following the comparison of D4 with D3 and D4 with D5 ET. Interestingly, we report statistically significant lower preterm birth rates associated with D4 ET, in contrast with D5 ET (RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67; p value = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The aforementioned results may serve as advocates buttressing the option of D4 ET as a valid candidate in the ET decision-making process. Possible limitations of the current study are the publication bias stemming from the retrospective nature of certain included studies, along with various deviations among studies' design, referring to number and quality of transferred embryos, or different culture conditions referring to studies of previous decades.

Risks in Surrogacy Considering the Embryo: From the Preimplantation to the Gestational and Neonatal Period.

Surrogacy is an assisted reproduction-based approach in which the intended parents assign the gestation and birth to another woman called the surrogate mother. The drivers of surrogacy refer largely to infertility, medical conditions, same-sex couples' parenting, and cases of diversity regarding sexual identity and orientation. Surrogacy consists of a valid option for a variety of conditions or circumstances ranging from medical to social reasons. However, surrogacy may be associated with risks during the preimplantation, prenatal, and neonatal period. It became obvious during the exhaustive literature research that data on surrogacy and its association with factors specific to the IVF practice and the options available were not fully represented. Could it be that surrogacy management adds another level of complexity to the process from the ovarian stimulation, the subsequent IVF cycle, and the techniques employed within the IVF and the Genetic Laboratory to the fetal, perinatal, and neonatal period? This work emphasizes the risks associated with surrogacy with respect to the preimplantation embryo, the fetus, and the infant. Moreover, it further calls for larger studies reporting on surrogacy and comparing the surrogate management to that of the routine IVF patient in order to avoid suboptimal management of a surrogate cycle. This is of particular importance in light of the fact that the surrogate cycle may include not only the surrogate but also the egg donor, sperm donor, and the commissioning couple or single person.