4.3 Article

Performance of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in IVF cycles for patients with advanced maternal age, repeat implantation failure, and idiopathic recurrent miscarriage

Journal

TAIWANESE JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 2, Pages 239-243

Publisher

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.01.013

Keywords

Array comparative genomic hybridization; Blastocyst; Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

Funding

  1. Changhua Christian Hospital [104-CCHIRP-052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts through array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) improves live birth rates (LBR) in IVF cycles for patients with high prevalence of aneuploidy. Materials and Methods: This study included 1389 blastocysts with aCGH results derived from 296 PGT-A cycles in IVF patients with advanced maternal age (AMA) (n = 87, group A), those with repeated implantation failure (RIF) (n = 82, group B), those with recurrent miscarriage (RM) (n = 82, group C), and oocyte donors (OD) (n = 45, young age, as a control group). Another 61 AMA patients without PGT-A procedures were used as a control group for group A. Vitrification was performed after blastocyst biopsy, and thawed euploid embryos were transferred in a nonstimulated cycle. Results: For the AMA group, a significant increase in LBRs was found in the PGT-A group compared with the non-PGT-A group (54.1% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.018). Consistent LBRs (54.1%, 51.6%, 55.9%, and 57.1%, respectively, in group A, B, C, and young age group) were obtained for all the indications. Conclusions: LBRs can be improved using PGT-A of blastocysts with aCGH in IVF cycles for patients with a high rate of aneuploidy, especially for patients with AMA. (C) 2019 Taiwan Association of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available