Abstract
Summary Background
Time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection might improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment due to undisturbed embryo culture conditions, improved embryo selection, or both. However, the benefit remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of time-lapse imaging systems providing undisturbed culture and embryo selection, and time-lapse imaging systems providing only undisturbed culture, and compared each with standard care without time-lapse imaging.
MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, three-parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in participants undergoing IVF or ICSI at seven IVF centres in the UK and Hong Kong. Embryologists randomly assigned participants using a web-based system, stratified by clinic in a 1:1:1 ratio to the time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture and embryo selection (time-lapse imaging group), time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture alone (undisturbed culture group), and standard care without time-lapse imaging (control group). Women were required to be aged 18–42 years and men (ie, their partners) 18 years or older. Couples had to be receiving their first, second, or third IVF or ICSI treatment and could not participate if using donor gametes. Participants and trial staff were masked to group assignment, embryologists were not. The primary outcome was live birth. We performed analyses using the intention-to-treat principle and reported the main analysis in participants with primary outcome data available (full analysis set). The trial is registered on the International Trials Registry (ISRCTN17792989) and is now closed.
Findings1575 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups (525 participants per group) between June 21, 2018, and Sept 30, 2022. The live birth rates were 33·7% (175/520) in the time-lapse imaging group, 36·6% (189/516) in the undisturbed culture group, and 33·0% (172/522) in the standard care group. The adjusted odds ratio was 1·04 (97·5% CI 0·73 to 1·47) for time-lapse imaging arm versus control and 1·20 (0·85 to 1·70) for undisturbed culture versus control. The risk reduction for the absolute difference was 0·7 percentage points (97·5% CI –5·85 to 7·25) between the time-lapse imaging and standard care groups and 3·6 percentage points (–3·02 to 10·22) between the undisturbed culture and standard care groups. 79 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial were reported (n=28 in time-lapse imaging, n=27 in undisturbed culture, and n=24 in standard care).
InterpretationIn women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment, the use of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo culture and selection does not significantly increase the odds of live birth compared with standard care without time-lapse imaging.
FundingBarts Charity, Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals, Hong Kong OG Trust Fund, Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, Hong Kong Matching Fund.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Women's Health Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Homerton Fertility Centre, Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
2 Assisted Reproductive Technology Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
3 Institute of Cancer Research, Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, Sutton, UK
4 School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
5 Women's Health Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
6 GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development, Stevenage, UK
7 Human Development and Health, Institute of Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
8 The Centre for Reproductive Medicine, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
9 Centre for Reproduction and Gynaecology Wales and the West, Plymouth, UK
10 Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), London, UK
11 Department of Statistics and OR, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
12 Wolfson Fertility Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK
13 Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College, London, UK
14 Department of Statistics and Data Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
15 Department of Preventative Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
16 Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK; Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK