Cargando…

Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has an effect on improving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes compared to traditional morphological methods. METHODS: A literature search was co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Minghao, Wei, Shiyou, Hu, Junyan, Quan, Song
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4607161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26470028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140779
_version_ 1782395469177028608
author Chen, Minghao
Wei, Shiyou
Hu, Junyan
Quan, Song
author_facet Chen, Minghao
Wei, Shiyou
Hu, Junyan
Quan, Song
author_sort Chen, Minghao
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To examine whether comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has an effect on improving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes compared to traditional morphological methods. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2015. Two reviewers independently evaluated titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed quality. We included studies that compared the IVF/ICSI outcomes of CCS-based embryo selection with those of the traditional morphological method. Relative risk (RR) values with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in RevMan 5.3, and subgroup analysis and Begg’s test were used to assess heterogeneity and potential publication bias, respectively. RESULTS: Four RCTs and seven cohort studies were included. A meta-analysis of the outcomes showed that compared to morphological criteria, euploid embryos identified by CCS were more likely to be successfully implanted (RCT RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18–1.47; cohort study RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.35–2.24). CCS-based PGS was also related to an increased clinical pregnancy rate (RCT RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.83–1.93; cohort study RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20–1.83), an increased ongoing pregnancy rate (RCT RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.64–2.66; cohort study RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.30–2.00), and an increased live birth rate (RCT RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05–1.50; cohort study RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85–2.13) as well as a decreased miscarriage rate (RCT RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.24–1.15; cohort study RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21–0.46) and a decreased multiple pregnancy rate (RCT RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.26; cohort study RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.51). The results of the subgroup analysis also showed a significantly increased implantation rate in the CCS group. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of CCS-based PGS is comparable to that of traditional morphological methods, with better outcomes for women receiving IVF/ICSI technology. The transfer of both trophectoderm-biopsied and blastomere-biopsied CCS-euploid embryos can improve the implantation rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4607161
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46071612015-10-29 Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis Chen, Minghao Wei, Shiyou Hu, Junyan Quan, Song PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To examine whether comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has an effect on improving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes compared to traditional morphological methods. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2015. Two reviewers independently evaluated titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed quality. We included studies that compared the IVF/ICSI outcomes of CCS-based embryo selection with those of the traditional morphological method. Relative risk (RR) values with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in RevMan 5.3, and subgroup analysis and Begg’s test were used to assess heterogeneity and potential publication bias, respectively. RESULTS: Four RCTs and seven cohort studies were included. A meta-analysis of the outcomes showed that compared to morphological criteria, euploid embryos identified by CCS were more likely to be successfully implanted (RCT RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18–1.47; cohort study RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.35–2.24). CCS-based PGS was also related to an increased clinical pregnancy rate (RCT RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.83–1.93; cohort study RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20–1.83), an increased ongoing pregnancy rate (RCT RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.64–2.66; cohort study RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.30–2.00), and an increased live birth rate (RCT RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05–1.50; cohort study RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85–2.13) as well as a decreased miscarriage rate (RCT RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.24–1.15; cohort study RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21–0.46) and a decreased multiple pregnancy rate (RCT RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.26; cohort study RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.51). The results of the subgroup analysis also showed a significantly increased implantation rate in the CCS group. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of CCS-based PGS is comparable to that of traditional morphological methods, with better outcomes for women receiving IVF/ICSI technology. The transfer of both trophectoderm-biopsied and blastomere-biopsied CCS-euploid embryos can improve the implantation rate. Public Library of Science 2015-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4607161/ /pubmed/26470028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140779 Text en © 2015 Chen et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chen, Minghao
Wei, Shiyou
Hu, Junyan
Quan, Song
Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis
title Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis
title_full Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis
title_short Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis
title_sort can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve ivf/icsi outcomes? a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4607161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26470028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140779
work_keys_str_mv AT chenminghao cancomprehensivechromosomescreeningtechnologyimproveivficsioutcomesametaanalysis
AT weishiyou cancomprehensivechromosomescreeningtechnologyimproveivficsioutcomesametaanalysis
AT hujunyan cancomprehensivechromosomescreeningtechnologyimproveivficsioutcomesametaanalysis
AT quansong cancomprehensivechromosomescreeningtechnologyimproveivficsioutcomesametaanalysis