Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on October 17, 2008
Human Reproduction 2008 23(12):2818-2825; doi:10.1093/humrep/den367
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/12/2818    most recent
den367v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Staessen, C.
Right arrow Articles by Devroey, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Staessen, C.
Right arrow Articles by Devroey, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer

C. Staessen1,4, W. Verpoest2, P. Donoso2, P. Haentjens3, J. Van der Elst2, I. Liebaers1 and P. Devroey2

1 Centre for Medical Genetics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium 2 Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium 3 Center for Outcomes Research and Laboratory for Experimental Surgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium

4 Correspondence address. E-mail: catherine.staessen{at}uzbrussel.be

BACKGROUND: Single-embryo transfer is a well-accepted strategy to avoid multiple pregnancies in an assisted reproductive technology (ART) programme. Besides the morphological quality and embryo kinetics up to the blastocyst stage, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) of aneuploidy has been advocated as an adjuvant approach to select the embryo.

METHODS: Couples with a female partner younger than 36 were randomly assigned to undergo transfer of a single blastocyst in a cycle with or without PGS using FISH for the chromosomes X, Y, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22.

RESULTS: After the enrolment of 120 of the projected 447 patients in each group, study recruitment was terminated prematurely on the basis of futility. The observed live birth delivery rates after ART were 30.8 versus 30.8% per randomized patient, 34.6 versus 34.6% per cycle initiated, 37.8 versus 37.0% per aspirated cycle and 41.6 versus 43.5% per embryo transfer for the control versus the PGS group, respectively, with absolute between-group differences (95% CI; P value) of 0% (–11.7 to 11.7; P = 1.00), 0% (–12.7 to 12.7; P = 1.00), –0.8% (–14.2 to 12.7; P = 0.91) and 2.1% (–12.7 to 16.7; P = 0.79), respectively. Even in this younger age group, only 61% of the embryos had a normal diploid status.

CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a beneficial treatment effect in this randomized clinical trial provides no arguments in favour of PGS to improve live birth delivery rate following single-embryo transfer in women under the age 36. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT00670059 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .

Key words: single-embryo transfer/aneuploidy screening/preimplantation genetic screening

Submitted on March 21, 2008; resubmitted on September 9, 2008; accepted on September 10, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. De Vos, C. Staessen, M. De Rycke, W. Verpoest, P. Haentjens, P. Devroey, I. Liebaers, and H. Van de Velde
Impact of cleavage-stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2009; 24(12): 2988 - 2996.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. Vanneste, T. Voet, C. Melotte, S. Debrock, K. Sermon, C. Staessen, I. Liebaers, J.-P. Fryns, T. D'Hooghe, and J. R. Vermeesch
What next for preimplantation genetic screening? High mitotic chromosome instability rate provides the biological basis for the low success rate
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2009; 24(11): 2679 - 2682.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
I. Liebaers, S. Desmyttere, W. Verpoest, M. De Rycke, C. Staessen, K. Sermon, P. Devroey, P. Haentjens, and M. Bonduelle
Report on a consecutive series of 581 children born after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis
Hum. Reprod., August 27, 2009; (2009) dep298v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. Rubio, C. Gimenez, E. Fernandez, X. Vendrell, E. Velilla, M. Parriego, L. Rodrigo, and for Spanish Interest Group in Preimplantation Gene
The importance of good practice in preimplantation genetic screening: critical viewpoints
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2009; 24(8): 2045 - 2047.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
P. Devroey, B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR)
Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2009; 15(4): 391 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. R. Hernandez
What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Beyond aneuploidy
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 1538 - 1541.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. A. Fritz
Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now?
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2617 - 2621.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.