Abstract

Despite the utilization of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for aneuploidy (PGT-A), to rule out the chromosomal aberrations during an in vitro fertilization (IVF) that result in pregnancy losses along with Time lapse microscopy (TLM) for the avoidance of pregnancy loss following single euploid embryo transfer (ET) has still not become feasible. Thus, to further study the details of morphokinetic characteristics with the utilization of TLM, McQueen., et al. attempted a more detailed evaluation of the morphokinetic characteristics from time to syngamy to time to morula in addition to time to blastocyst generation. Subsequent to a single euploid embryo transfer with their studies of embryos which ended in an euploid abortion did not reveal any aberrant morphokinetic on the utilization of time lapse imaging. Hence as per their conclusions the etiology of euploid pregnancy loss is secondary to lot of factors that is inclusive of both embryo in addition to endometrial factors, with greater research required for finding the factors that can cause anticipation of as well as prevention of euploid loss. Apparently, the only answer lies in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), for this anticipation once available.

Keywords: Embryo Morphokinetic; In Vitro Fertilization (IVF); Time Lapse Imaging; Euploid Pregnancy Loss

References

1. Levy B., et al. “Genomic imbalance in products of conception: single nucleotide polymorphism chromosomal microarray analysis”. Obstetrics and Gynecology 124 (2014): 202-209.
2. Swai GE. “Could time lapse imaging reduce the need for biopsy and PGS?”. The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 30 (2013): 1081-1090.
3. Meseguer M., et al. “Embryo incubation and selection of time lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study”. Fertility and Sterility 98 (2012): 1481-1489.
4. RienzlL Cimadomo D., et al. “Time of morulation and trophectoderm quality are predictors of after euploid embryo transfer: a multicenter study”. Fertility and Sterility 112 (2019): 1080-1093.
5. Meseguer M., et al. “The use of morphokinetic as a predictor of embryo Implantation”. Human Reproduction 26 (2011): 2658-2671.
6. ESHREWorking Group In time lapse Technology Apter S., et al. “Good practice recommendations for the use of time lapse”. Technology Human Reproduction Open (2020): hoaa008.
7. MaQueen DB., et al. “Can embryo morphokinetic parameters predict euploid pregnancy loss?” Fertility and Sterility 115 (2021): 382-388.
8. Motalo Y., et al. “Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation”. Fertility and Sterility 105 (2016): 376-384.
9. Meseguer M. “Euploidy prediction: possible or impossible? Closer or fartheraway?” Fertility and Sterility 115 (2021): 316-316.
10. Kulvinder Kochar Kaur., et al. “Role of Artificial Intelligence with regards to improving success rate in human ‘’in vitro fertilization ‘’with emphasis on the blastocyst characteristics with respect to improving implantation, avoiding aneuploidy , for optimization of Live Birth rates’’-A Systematic Review”. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology1 (2021): 1-10.
11. Kulvinder Kochar Kaur., et al. “Attempting Utilization of Precision Medicine in Addition to Artificial Intelligence in Reproductive medicine- An Introduction Along with their significance-A Review”. Perceptions in Reproductive Medicine3 (2021): 1-7.