Clinical validation of the early embryo viability assessment system: Analysis for the blastocyst morphology and pregnancy outcomes

Abstract

Objective: To determine the relationship between the early embryo viability assessment (EEVA) and blastocyst morphological parameters and pregnancy outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on 291 intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles including 2 522 embryos with indications of prolonging embryo culture to the blastocyst stage in the Genea embryo review incubator, and 511 single vitrified- warmed blastocyst transfer cycles from January 2020 to June 2023. The EEVA system produced an EEVA score from E1 (best) to E5 (worse) for the potential of blastocyst formation. Blastocyst morphology was evaluated. The association between the EEVA score and each type of blastocyst morphology, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, and ongoing pregnancy were assessed using generalized estimating equations.

Results: The inner cell mass A (ICM A), trophectoderm A (TE A), blastocoele expansion degree of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 rates were higher with lower the EEVA score. The adjusted odd ratio (aOR) (E5 vs E1) was 0.3 for ICM A, 0.174 for TE A and 0.210 for BL3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (all P<0.001), suggesting a significant association between lower EEVA scores and improved embryo quality. The implantation, clinical pregnancy, and ongoing pregnancy rate were also higher with lower the EEVA score. The aOR of E5 vs E1 was 0.245 for implantation, 0.185 for clinical pregnancy and 0.200 for ongoing pregnancy rate (P<0.001).

Conclusions: There were associations between blastocyst morphology, pregnancy outcome and EEVA scores. The good blastocyst morphology and pregnancy outcomes are higher with lower the EEVA score.

Keywords

Automated embryo assessment / Blastocyst / Early embryo viability assessment / Genea embryo review incubator / Morphology / Pregnancy outcomes / Timelapse

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding

The study has received no extramural funding.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the main text, tables, and figures.

Authors’ contributions

Vu D Hop, Nguyen T L Huong, Nguyen V Hanh, and Le Hoang conceived, designed, interpreted the data, and coordinated the work. Vu D Hop wrote the manuscript. An M Cuong and Phi T T Anh collected, double checked the data, and participated in interpreting the data. Nguyen T L Huong, Nguyen V Hanh, and Le Hoang reviewed the manuscript. All authors jointly contributed to the final version of the manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

The Publisher of the Journal remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

[1] Lee AM, Connell MT, Csokmay JM, Styer AK. Elective single embryo transfer- the power of one. Contracept Reprod Med 2016; 1(1):11.

[2] Revelli A, Canosa S, Carosso A, Filippini C, Paschero C, Gennarelli G, et al. Impact of the addition of Early Embryo Viability Assessment to morphological evaluation on the accuracy of embryo selection on day 3 or day 5: a retrospective analysis. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12(1):73.

[3] Wong C, Chen AA, Behr B, Shen S. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26(2):120-129.

[4] Aparicio B, Cruz M, Meseguer M. Is morphokinetic analysis the answer? Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27(6):654-663.

[5] Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20(5):617-631.

[6] Sundvall L, Ingerslev HJ, Breth Knudsen U, Kirkegaard K. Inter- and intra-observer variability of time-lapse annotations. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2013; 28(12):3215-3221.

[7] Goodman LR, Goldberg J, Falcone T, Austin C, Desai N. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2016; 105(2): 275-285.e10.

[8] Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Grøndahl ML, Kesmodel US, Ingerslev HJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29(6):565-572.

[9] Sciorio R, Thong JK, Pickering SJ. Comparison of the development of human embryos cultured in either an EmbryoScope or benchtop incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35(3):515-522.

[10] Leung AS, Son WY, Dahan MH. Time-lapse imaging of embryos: Current evidence supporting its use. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016; 13(10):881-883.

[11] Valera MA, Aparicio-Ruiz B, Pérez-Albalá S, Romany L, Remohí J, Meseguer M. Clinical validation of an automatic classification algorithm applied on cleavage stage embryos: Analysis for blastulation, euploidy, implantation, and live-birth potential. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2023; 38(6):1060-1075.

[12] Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Yuan J, Liu F. Does time-lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2017; 12(6):e0178720.

[13] Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28(10):1115-1121.

[14] Dal Canto M, Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, De Ponti E, Novara PV, Brambillasca F, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25(5):474-480.

[15] Picou A, Werland H, Silverberg KM, VerMilyea M. Blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate comparison between standard large box (Sanyo) incubators and a novel Geri^® time-lapse incubator. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 39:e7.

[16] Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: Results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100(2): 412-419.e5.

[17] Kaser DJ, Bormann CL, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. A pilot randomized controlled trial of Day 3 single embryo transfer with adjunctive time-lapse selection versus Day 5 single embryo transfer with or without adjunctive time-lapse selection. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2017; 32(8):1598-1603.

[18] Kieslinger DC, De Gheselle S, Lambalk CB, De Sutter P, Kostelijk EH, Twisk JWR, et al. Embryo selection using time-lapse analysis (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in conjunction with standard morphology: A prospective two-center pilot study. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2016; 31(11):2450-2457.

[19] Yang L, Cai S, Zhang S, Kong X, Gu Y, Lu C, et al. Single embryo transfer by Day 3 time-lapse selection versus Day 5 conventional morphological selection: A randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2018; 33(5):869-876.

[20] Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1999; 11(3):307-311.

[21] Penzias A, Bendikson K, Butts S, Coutifaris C, Falcone T, Fossum G, et al. Performing the embryo transfer: A guideline. Fertil Steril 2017; 107(4):882-896.

[22] Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (4): CD002118.

[23] Papanikolaou EG, D’haeseleer E, Verheyen G, Van de Velde H, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2005; 20(11):3198-3203.

[24] Diamond MP, Suraj V, Behnke EJ, Yang X, Angle MJ, Lambe-Steinmiller JC, et al. Using the Eeva Test^TM adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32(1):61-68.

[25] Zhao J, Yan Y, Huang X, Sun L, Li Y. Blastocoele expansion: An important parameter for predicting clinical success pregnancy after frozen-warmed blastocysts transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2019; 17(1):15.

[26] Thompson SM, Onwubalili N, Brown K, Jindal SK, McGovern PG. Blastocyst expansion score and trophectoderm morphology strongly predict successful clinical pregnancy and live birth following elective single embryo blastocyst transfer (eSET): A national study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30(12):1577-1581.