Why the hypothesis of embryo selection in IVF/ICSI must finally be reconsidered.

IF 11.1 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Human reproduction open Pub Date : 2025-03-20 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/hropen/hoaf011
Norbert Gleicher, Sonia Gayete-Lafuente, David H Barad, Pasquale Patrizio, David F Albertini
{"title":"Why the hypothesis of embryo selection in IVF/ICSI must finally be reconsidered.","authors":"Norbert Gleicher, Sonia Gayete-Lafuente, David H Barad, Pasquale Patrizio, David F Albertini","doi":"10.1093/hropen/hoaf011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Embryo selection (ES) during IVF is expected to select the 'best' embryo(s) from among a cycle's embryo cohort and has been a core concept of IVF for over 40 years. However, among 36 492 articles on ES in a recent PubMed search, we were unable to locate even a single one questioning the concept that, beyond standard oocyte and embryo morphology, ES has remained an unproven hypothesis. In unselected patient populations, attempts at ES have universally, indeed, failed to improve cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates. The only benefit ES appears to offer is a marginal shortening in time to pregnancy, and even this benefit manifests only in best-prognosis patients with large oocyte and embryo numbers. Excluding <i>in vitro</i> maturation efforts, oocytes, once retrieved, and their resulting embryos have predetermined finite cumulative pregnancy and live birth chances that cannot be further improved. The hypothesis of ES has, however, remained a driving force for research and the introduction of a multitude of 'add-ons' to IVF. Enormous investments over decades in ES, therefore, should be better redirected from post- to pre-retrieval efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":73264,"journal":{"name":"Human reproduction open","volume":"2025 2","pages":"hoaf011"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11928228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human reproduction open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaf011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Embryo selection (ES) during IVF is expected to select the 'best' embryo(s) from among a cycle's embryo cohort and has been a core concept of IVF for over 40 years. However, among 36 492 articles on ES in a recent PubMed search, we were unable to locate even a single one questioning the concept that, beyond standard oocyte and embryo morphology, ES has remained an unproven hypothesis. In unselected patient populations, attempts at ES have universally, indeed, failed to improve cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates. The only benefit ES appears to offer is a marginal shortening in time to pregnancy, and even this benefit manifests only in best-prognosis patients with large oocyte and embryo numbers. Excluding in vitro maturation efforts, oocytes, once retrieved, and their resulting embryos have predetermined finite cumulative pregnancy and live birth chances that cannot be further improved. The hypothesis of ES has, however, remained a driving force for research and the introduction of a multitude of 'add-ons' to IVF. Enormous investments over decades in ES, therefore, should be better redirected from post- to pre-retrieval efforts.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么IVF/ICSI中的胚胎选择假说最终必须重新考虑?
体外受精中的胚胎选择(ES)旨在从一个周期的胚胎群中选择“最好”的胚胎,这是40多年来体外受精的核心概念。然而,在最近的PubMed检索中,在36492篇关于胚胎干细胞的文章中,我们甚至找不到一篇质疑这个概念的文章,即除了标准的卵母细胞和胚胎形态之外,胚胎干细胞仍然是一个未经证实的假设。在未被选择的患者群体中,ES的尝试确实普遍未能改善累积怀孕率和活产率。ES提供的唯一好处似乎是略微缩短妊娠时间,即使这种好处也仅在预后最好的卵母细胞和胚胎数量大的患者中表现出来。排除体外成熟的努力,卵母细胞,一旦回收,其产生的胚胎具有预定的有限累积妊娠和活产机会,不能进一步提高。然而,胚胎干细胞假说仍然是研究和引入试管婴儿大量“附加组件”的推动力。因此,过去几十年来对ES的巨大投资应该更好地从检索后转向检索前。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Periconceptional GLP-1 receptor agonist exposure and obstetric outcomes: a Danish nationwide cohort study. When drugs meet disease: disentangling diabetes, obesity, and periconceptional GLP-1 receptor agonist safety. Clinical and genetic basis of congenital gonadotropin deficiency. Evaluating the potential for sperm DNA fragmentation testing to guide the use of ICSI for couples with non-severe male infertility. Impact of glucose metabolism abnormalities on live birth rate in South-East Asian women with polycystic ovary syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1