Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on May 11, 2007
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/dem100
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/7/1973    most recent
dem100v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Guerif, F.
Right arrow Articles by Royere, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Guerif, F.
Right arrow Articles by Royere, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. 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

Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: A prospective study based on 4042 embryos

F. Guerif1, A. Le Gouge2, B. Giraudeau2, J. Poindron1, R. Bidault1, O. Gasnier1 and D. Royere1,3

1 Service de Médecine et Biologie de la Reproduction, CHU Bretonneau, 2 Boulevard Tonnelle, 37000 Tours, France 2 INSERM CIC 202, Université François Rabelais de Tours, CHRU de Tours, France

3 Correspondence address. Tel: +33-247-474-746; Fax: +33-247-478-484; E-mail: royere{at}med.univ-tours.fr

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive and routine developmental markers are available to select the most viable embryo; however their respective values in terms of blastocyst development potential remain difficult to distinguish.

METHODS: During this prospective study, the sequential growth of 4042 embryos individually cultured from day 1 to day 5/6 was recorded. Pronuclear morphology on day 1, and early cleavage, cell number and fragmentation rate on day 2 were evaluated for each zygote. Additionally, blastocyst transfers were analysed with regard to their implantation ability and early embryo development parameters.

RESULTS: Once adjusted to each other, each of the four parameters remained related to blastocyst development. Early cleavage and cell number on day 2 were the most powerful parameters to predict the development of a good morphology blastocyst at day 5. Moreover, whereas transfers of a good morphology blastocyst were associated with high implantation and live birth rates, parameters of early development were not helpful in predicting their implantation ability.

CONCLUSIONS: The combination of all four parameters allowed the prediction of blastocyst development with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.688, which represents a fairly low prediction of embryo viability. Such results indicate that it is necessary to search for additional criteria, including the ability of the blastocyst to develop.

Key words: blastocyst/early cleavage/implantation/embryo morphology/zygote scoring

Submitted on December 11, 2006; resubmitted on March 14, 2007; accepted on March 29, 2007.


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
C. Racowsky, L. Ohno-Machado, J. Kim, and J. D. Biggers
Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day?
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2009; 24(9): 2104 - 2113.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
F. Guerif, M. Lemseffer, R. Bidault, O. Gasnier, M.H. Saussereau, V. Cadoret, C. Jamet, and D. Royere
Single Day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2009; 24(5): 1051 - 1058.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
N. Ledee, R. Lombroso, L. Lombardelli, J. Selva, S. Dubanchet, G. Chaouat, F. Frankenne, J.M. Foidart, E. Maggi, S. Romagnani, et al.
Cytokines and chemokines in follicular fluids and potential of the corresponding embryo: the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2001 - 2009.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. Beuchat, P. Thevenaz, M. Unser, T. Ebner, A. Senn, F. Urner, M. Germond, and C.O.S. Sorzano
Quantitative morphometrical characterization of human pronuclear zygotes
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 1983 - 1992.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
F. Dominguez, B. Gadea, F. J. Esteban, J. A. Horcajadas, A. Pellicer, and C. Simon
Comparative protein-profile analysis of implanted versus non-implanted human blastocysts
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 1993 - 2000.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. Feuerstein, V. Cadoret, R. Dalbies-Tran, F. Guerif, R. Bidault, and D. Royere
Gene expression in human cumulus cells: one approach to oocyte competence
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2007; 22(12): 3069 - 3077.
[Abstract] [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.