Morphokinetic characteristics of embryos derived from in-vitro-matured oocytes and their in-vivo-matured siblings after ovarian stimulation

1Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Research question: Does delayed maturation of aspirated metaphase I (MI) oocytes, completed in vitro, adversely affect early embryo development? Design: Time-lapse microscopy was used to compare morphokinetic variables between embryos derived from oocytes with delayed maturation after ovarian stimulation and from in-vivo-matured metaphase II (MII) sibling oocytes from the same IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle. Results: A total of 1545 injected oocytes in 169 cycles from 149 patients were included. The in-vitro-matured oocytes had lower normal fertilization rates than the MII aspirated oocytes (50.2% versus 68.0%; P < 0.001). Early key developmental events were significantly delayed in the normally fertilized in-vitro-matured compared with in-vivo-matured oocytes (polar body extrusion: 5.4 ± 3 versus 3.9 ± 1.8 h; P < 0.001; pronuclear fading: 27.2 ± 4.7 versus 25.1 ± 4.2 h; P < 0.001, respectively) and synchrony of the second cell cycle was adversely affected. The proportions of embryos with optimal second cell cycle length and second cell cycle were similar but with fewer top-quality embryos, based on an algorithm, for the delayed in-vitro-matured oocytes compared with their in-vivo-matured sibling oocytes (14% versus 29.1%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Embryos derived from oocytes that failed to mature in-vivo in standard treatment after ovarian stimulation may show a different morphokinetic profile from their sibling oocytes aspirated at the MII stage after completing maturation in-vivo.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Margalit, T., Ben-Haroush, A., Garor, R., Kotler, N., Shefer, D., Krasilnikov, N., … Sapir, O. (2019). Morphokinetic characteristics of embryos derived from in-vitro-matured oocytes and their in-vivo-matured siblings after ovarian stimulation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 38(1), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.10.002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free