Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:08:10.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

74 - The Future of Assisted Reproduction

from PART IV - ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN FERTILITY AND ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

By
Biljana Popovic Todorovic  and
Paul Devroey
Edited by
Botros R. M. B. Rizk ,
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco ,
Hassan N. Sallam  and
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

The past three decades have witnessed revolution in reproductive medicine. Since the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 (1), there has been an expansion in the number of vitro fertilization treatment worldwide. In the first European Register publication (2) 203,893 IVF/ICSI were reported by eighteen European countries, and by 2002, this number rose to 324,238 cycles from twenty-five countries, accounting for almost 60 percent increase of registered cycles (3). In the last World IVF report from 2000, 460,157 cycles were carried out in forty-nine countries, and it was estimated that approximately 200,000 babies were born (4). Although neither European nor World coverage is complete regarding the register data, the expansion of IVF is evident, and the estimate is that more than three million children have been born as a result of assisted reproduction since the beginning.

The driving force of this medical field has always been better treatment outcome. Increasing the efficiency of the treatment is what the future holds for us.

DEFINITION OF SUCCESS

What is the definition of success in assisted reproduction? A debate was started in Human Reproduction in 2004, with the suggestion of Min et al., to define success as “BESST – birth emphasizing a successful singleton at term” (5). This sparked discussion of many renowned international groups, and a number of definitions were introduced – healthy lower order birth (6), number of elective single embryo transfers per center (7), and value of cryopreservation programs (8).

Keywords

assisted reproductionembryo transferendometrial receptivitygonadotropin-releasing hormone agonistsin vitro fertilizationovarian stimulationgonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists
Type
Chapter
Information
Infertility and Assisted Reproduction , pp. 747 - 758
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Steptoe, PC, Edwards, RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2(8085):366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygren, KG, Andersen, AN. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1997. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. European IVF-Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod 2001; 16(2):384–391.Google Scholar
Andersen, AN, Gianaroli, L, Felberbaum, R, Mouzon, J, Nygren, KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(7):1680–1697.Google Scholar
Adamson, GD, Mouzon, J, Lancaster, P, Nygren, KG, Sullivan, E, Zegers-Hochschild, F. World collaborative report on in vitro fertilization, 2000. Fertil Steril 2006; 85(6):1586–1622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Min, JK, Breheny, SA, MacLachlan, V, Healy, DL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(1):3–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickey, RP, Sartor, BM, Pyrzak, R. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: no single outcome measure is satisfactory when evaluating success in assisted reproduction; both twin births and singleton births should be counted as successes. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(4):783–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Land, JA, Evers, JL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Defining outcome in ART: a Gordian knot of safety, efficacy and quality. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(5):1046–1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiitinen, A, Hyden-Granskog, C, Gissler, M. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The value of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy rates per single oocyte retrieval should not be forgotten. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(11):2439–2441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinborg, A, Loft, A, Ziebe, S, Nyboe, AA. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Is there a single ‘parameter of excellence’?Hum Reprod 2004; 19(5):1052–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heijnen, EM, Macklon, NS, Fauser, BC. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(9):1936–1938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, HW Jr. IVF: past and future. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6(3):375–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopata, A. Successes and failures in human in vitro fertilization. Nature 1980; 288(5792):642–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, RN, Smith, W, Craft, IL, Abdulwahid, NA, Jacobs, HS. Induction of ovulation for in-vitro fertilisation using buserelin and gonadotropins. Lancet 1984; 2(8414):1284–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vries, MJ, Sutter, P, Dhont, M. Prognostic factors in patients continuing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment and dropouts. Fertil Steril 1999; 72(4):674–678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, V, Allgar, V, Rajkhowa, M. Factors influencing the cumulative conception rate and discontinuation of in vitro fertilization treatment for infertility. Fertil Steril 2002; 78(1):40–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beerendonk, CC, Dop, PA, Braat, DD, Merkus, JM. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: facts and fallacies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1998; 53(7):439–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macklon, NS, Fauser, BC. Impact of ovarian hyperstimulation on the luteal phase. J Reprod FertilSuppl 2000; 55:101–108.Google ScholarPubMed
Gaast, MH, Beckers, NG, Beier-Hellwig, K, Beier, HM, Macklon, NS, Fauser, BC. Ovarian stimulation for IVF and endometrial receptivity – the missing link. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5(3 Suppl. 1):36–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popovic-Todorovic, B, Loft, A, Lindhard, A, Bangsboll, S, Andersson, AM, Andersen, AN. A prospective study of predictive factors of ovarian response in ‘standard’ IVF/ICSI patients treated with recombinant FSH. A suggestion for a recombinant FSH dosage normogram. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(4):781–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popovic-Todorovic, B, Loft, A, Bredkjaeer, HE, Bangsboll, S, Nielsen, IK, Andersen, AN. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing an individual dose of recombinant FSH based on predictive factors versus a ‘standard’ dose of 150 IU/day in ‘standard’ patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(11):2275–2282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaast, MH, Eijkemans, MJ, Net, JB, Boer, EJ, Burger, CW, Leeuwen, FE et al. Optimum number of oocytes for a successful first IVF treatment cycle. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13(4):476–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenwaks, Z, Davis, OK, Damario, MA. The role of maternal age in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1995; (10 Suppl. 1):165–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lass, A, Skull, J, McVeigh, E, Margara, R, Winston, RM. Measurement of ovarian volume by transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotrophin for in-vitro fertilization can predict poor response. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(2):294–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lass, A, Brinsden, P. The role of ovarian volume in reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod Update 1999; 5(3):256–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomas, C, Nuojua-Huttunen, S, Martikainen, H. Pretreatment transvaginal ultrasound examination predicts ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophins in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(2):220–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Syrop, CH, Dawson, JD, Husman, KJ, Sparks, AE, Voorhis, BJ. Ovarian volume may predict assisted reproductive outcomes better than follicle stimulating hormone concentration on day 3. Hum Reprod 1999; 14(7):1752–1756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, EH, Tang, OS, Ho, PC. The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(9):1937–1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupesic, S, Kurjak, A, Bjelos, D, Vujisic, S. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic ovarian measurements and in vitro fertilization outcome are related to age. Fertil Steril 2003; 79(1):190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffer, GJ, Broekmans, FJ, Looman, CW, Blankenstein, M, Fauser BC, BC, te Jong, FH et al.The number of antral follicles in normal women with proven fertility is the best reflection of reproductive age. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(4):700–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaidi, J, Barber, J, Kyei-Mensah, A, Bekir, J, Campbell, S, Tan, SL. Relationship of ovarian stromal blood flow at the baseline ultrasound scan to subsequent follicular response in an in vitro fertilization program. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88(5):779–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorhis, BJ, Dawson, JD, Stovall, DW, Sparks, AE, Syrop, CH. The effects of smoking on ovarian function and fertility during assisted reproduction cycles. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88(5):785–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bancsi, LF, Huijs, AM, Ouden, CT, Broekmans, FJ, Looman, CW, Blankenstein, MA et al. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels are of limited value in predicting ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2000; 73(3):552–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT, Toner, JP, Muasher, SJ, Oehninger, S, Robinson, S, Rosenwaks, Z. Follicle-stimulating hormone levels on cycle day 3 are predictive of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1989; 51(4):651–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noci, I, Biagiotti, R, Maggi, M, Ricci, F, Cinotti, A, Scarselli, G. Low day 3 luteinizing hormone values are predictive of reduced response to ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(3):531–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifer, DB, Lambert-Messerlian, G, Hogan, JW, Gardiner, AC, Blazar, AS, Berk, CA. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril 1997; 67(1):110–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooij, IA, Broekmans, FJ, te Velde, ER, Fauser, BC, Bancsi, LF, Jong, FH et al. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(12):3065–3071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchin, R, Schonauer, LM, Righini, C, Guibourdenche, J, Frydman, R, Taieb, J. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(2):323–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penarrubia, J, Fabregues, F, Manau, D, Creus, M, Casals, G, Casamitjana, R et al. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Mullerian hormone serum concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist – gonadotropin treatment. Hum Reprod 2005; 20(4):915–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooff, MH. The human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) dose in in vitro fertilization (IVF): what is the optimal dose?J Assist Reprod Genet 1995; 12(4):233–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Out, HJ, Lindenberg, S, Mikkelsen, AL, Eldar-Geva, T, Healy, DL, Leader, A et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial to study the efficacy and efficiency of a fixed dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1999; 14(3):622–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Out, HJ, Braat, DD, Lintsen, BM, Gurgan, T, Bukulmez, O, Gokmen, O et al. Increasing the daily dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) does not compensate for the age-related decline in retrievable oocytes after ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(1):29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Out, HJ, David, I, Ron-El, R, Friedler, S, Shalev, E, Geslevich, J et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial using fixed daily doses of 100 or 200 IU of recombinant FSH in ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(6):1104–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devroey, P, Tournaye, H, Steirteghem, A, Hendrix, P, Out, HJ. The use of a 100 IU starting dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(3):565–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoomans, EH, Mulder, BB. A group-comparative, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and efficiency of two fixed daily dose regimens (100- and 200-IU) of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH, Puregon) in Asian women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19(10):470–476.Google ScholarPubMed
Tinkanen, H, Blauer, M, Laippala, P, Tuohimaa, P, Kujansuu, E. Prognostic factors in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 1999; 72(5):932–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imani, B, Eijkemans, MJ, Faessen, GH, Bouchard, P, Giudice, LC, Fauser, BC. Prediction of the individual follicle-stimulating hormone threshold for gonadotropin induction of ovulation in normogonadotropic anovulatory infertility: an approach to increase safety and efficiency. Fertil Steril 2002; 77(1):83–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howles, CM, Saunders, H, Alam, V, Engrand, P. Predictive factors and a corresponding treatment algorithm for controlled ovarian stimulation in patients treated with recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) procedures. An analysis of 1378 patients. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22(5):907–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingmuller, D, Schepke, M, Enzweiler, C, Bidlingmaier, F. Hormonal responses to the new potent GnRH antagonist Cetrorelix. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh) 1993; 128(1):15–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Al Inany, H, Aboulghar, M. GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(4):874–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griesinger, G, Felberbaum, R, Diedrich, K. GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation: a treatment regimen of clinicians second choice? Data from the German national IVF registry. Hum Reprod 2005; 20(9):2373–2375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Collins, J, Tarlatzis, BC, Devroey, P, Diedrich, K, Griesinger, G. Among patients treated for IVF with gonadotrophins and GnRH analogues, is the probability of live birth dependent on the type of analogue used? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2006; 12(6):651–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Zikopoulos, K, Smitz, J, Camus, M, Tournaye, H, Steirteghem, AC et al. Elevated progesterone at initiation of stimulation is associated with a lower ongoing pregnancy rate after IVF using GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(7):1525–1529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wikland, M, Bergh, C, Borg, K, Hillensjo, T, Howles, CM, Knutsson, A et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of two starting doses of recombinant FSH in combination with cetrorelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(8):1676–1681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Out, HJ, Rutherford, A, Fleming, R, Tay, CC, Trew, G, Ledger, W et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicentre clinical trial comparing starting doses of 150 and 200 IU of recombinant FSH in women treated with the GnRH antagonist ganirelix for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(1):90–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al Inany, H, Aboulghar, MA, Mansour, RT, Serour, GI. Optimizing GnRH antagonist administration: meta-analysis of fixed versus flexible protocol. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10(5):567–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Albano, C, Kahn, J, Camus, M, Tournaye, H, Steirteghem, AC et al. Exposure to high levels of luteinizing hormone and estradiol in the early follicular phase of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles is associated with a reduced chance of pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2003; 79(4):873–880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Albano, C, Camus, M, Tournaye, H, Steirteghem, AC, Devroey, P. Prolongation of the follicular phase in in vitro fertilization results in a lower ongoing pregnancy rate in cycles stimulated with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists. Fertil Steril 2004; 82(1):102–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesinger, G, Diedrich, K, Devroey, P, Kolibianakis, EM. GnRH agonist for triggering final oocyte maturation in the GnRH antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2006; 12(2):159–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, HC, Jones, GS, Jones, HW Jr., Rosenwaks, Z. Mechanisms and factors of early pregnancy wastage in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer patients. Fertil Steril 1988; 50(1):95–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, Camus, M, Kolibianakis, EM, Landuyt, L, Steirteghem, A, Devroey, P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med 2006; 354(11):1139–1146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soares, SR, Troncoso, C, Bosch, E, Serra, V, Simon, C, Remohi, J et al. Age and uterine receptiveness: predicting the outcome of oocyte donation cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90(7):4399–4404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raga, F, Casan, EM, Kruessel, JS, Wen, Y, Huang, HY, Nezhat, C et al. Quantitative gonadotropin-releasing hormone gene expression and immunohistochemical localization in human endometrium throughout the menstrual cycle. Biol Reprod 1998; 59(3):661–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchini, M, Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Losa, GA, Ghisletta, M, Candiani, GB. Secretory changes in preovulatory endometrium during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with buserelin acetate and human gonadotropins. Fertil Steril 1991; 55(4):717–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubaldi, F, Bourgain, C, Tournaye, H, Smitz, J, Steirteghem, A, Devroey, P. Endometrial evaluation by aspiration biopsy on the day of oocyte retrieval in the embryo transfer cycles in patients with serum progesterone rise during the follicular phase. Fertil Steril 1997; 67(3):521–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, E, Bourgain, C, Albano, C, Osmanagaoglu, K, Smitz, J, Steirteghem, A et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists, and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertil Steril 2002; 78(5):1025–1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, MH, Balasch, J, Gonzalez-Merlo, JM, Vanrell, JA, Wheeler, C, Strauss, JF III et al. Endometrial cytosolic and nuclear progesterone receptors in the luteal phase defect. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1987; 64(3):472–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, C, Cano, F, Valbuena, D, Remohi, J, Pellicer, A. Clinical evidence for a detrimental effect on uterine receptivity of high serum oestradiol concentrations in high and normal responder patients. Hum Reprod 1995; 10(9):2432–2437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, C, Garcia Velasco, JJ, Valbuena, D, Peinado, JA, Moreno, C, Remohi, J et al. Increasing uterine receptivity by decreasing estradiol levels during the preimplantation period in high responders with the use of a follicle-stimulating hormone step-down regimen. Fertil Steril 1998; 70(2):234–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basir, GS, WS O, Ng EH, Ho, PC. Morphometric analysis of peri-implantation endometrium in patients having excessively high oestradiol concentrations after ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(3):435–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smitz, J, Devroey, P, Braeckmans, P, Camus, M, Khan, I, Staessen, C et al. Management of failed cycles in an IVF/GIFT programme with the combination of a GnRH analogue and HMG. Hum Reprod 1987; 2(4):309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akande, AV, Mathur, RS, Keay, SD, Jenkins, JM. The choice of luteal support following pituitary down regulation, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and in vitro fertilisation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103(10):963–966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frydman, R, Cornel, C, Ziegler, D, Taieb, J, Spitz, IM, Bouchard, P. Prevention of premature luteinizing hormone and progesterone rise with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, Nal-Glu, in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 1991; 56(5):923–927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckers, NG, Macklon, NS, Eijkemans, MJ, Ludwig, M, Felberbaum, RE, Diedrich, K et al. Nonsupplemented luteal phase characteristics after the administration of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin, recombinant luteinizing hormone, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce final oocyte maturation in in vitro fertilization patients after ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and GnRH antagonist cotreatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88(9):4186–4192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, J, Jones, GS, Acosta, AA, Wright, GL Jr. Corpus luteum function after follicle aspiration for oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril 1981; 36(5):565–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smitz, J, Devroey, P, Steirteghem, AC. Endocrinology in luteal phase and implantation. Br Med Bull 1990; 46(3):709–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fauser, BC, Devroey, P. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and luteal phase consequences. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2003; 14(5):236–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourgain, C, Devroey, P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9(6):515–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourgain, C, Smitz, J, Camus, M, Erard, P, Devroey, P, Steirteghem, AC et al. Human endometrial maturation is markedly improved after luteal supplementation of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue/human menopausal gonadotrophin stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1994; 9(1):32–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hohmann, FP, Macklon, NS, Fauser, BC. A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88(1):166–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heijnen, EM, Eijkemans, MJ, Klerk, C, Polinder, S, Beckers, NG, Klinkert, ER et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2007; 369(9563):743–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vyjayanthi, S, Tang, T, Fattah, A, Deivanayagam, M, Bardis, N, Balen, AH. Elective cryopreservation of embryos at the pronucleate stage in women at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome may affect the overall pregnancy rate. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(6):1773–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rall, WF, Fahy, GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at -196 degrees C by vitrification. Nature 1985; 313(6003):573–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuwayama, M, Vajta, G, Kato, O, Leibo, SP. Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11(3):300–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griesinger, G, Otte, S, Schroer, A, Ludwig, AK, Diedrich, K, Al Hasani, S et al. Elective cryopreservation of all pronuclear oocytes after GnRH agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in patients at risk of developing OHSS: a prospective, observational proof-of-concept study. Hum Reprod 2007 22(5):1348–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noyes, RW, Hertig, AT, Rock, J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 122(2):262–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, S, Hosid, S, Scott, L. Endometrial biopsy dating. Interobserver variation and its impact on clinical practice. J Reprod Med 1995; 40(1):1–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Murray, MJ, Meyer, WR, Zaino, RJ, Lessey, BA, Novotny, DB, Ireland, K et al. A critical analysis of the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility of histologic endometrial dating in fertile women. Fertil Steril 2004; 81(5):1333–1343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martel, D, Frydman, R, Glissant, M, Maggioni, C, Roche, D, Psychoyos, A. Scanning electron microscopy of postovulatory human endometrium in spontaneous cycles and cycles stimulated by hormone treatment. J Endocrinol 1987; 114(2):319–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lessey, BA. The role of the endometrium during embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (Suppl. 6):39–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Lessey, BA, Ilesanmi, AO, Lessey, MA, Riben, M, Harris, JE, Chwalisz, K. Luminal and glandular endometrial epithelium express integrins differentially throughout the menstrual cycle: implications for implantation, contraception, and infertility. Am J Reprod Immunol 1996; 35(3):195–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavaniotou, A, Bourgain, C, Albano, C, Platteau, P, Smitz, J, Devroey, P. Endometrial integrin expression in the early luteal phase in natural and stimulated cycles for in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 108(1):67–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laird, SM, Tuckerman, EM, Dalton, CF, Dunphy, BC, Li, TC, Zhang, X. The production of leukaemia inhibitory factor by human endometrium: presence in uterine flushings and production by cells in culture. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(3):569–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giess, R, Tanasescu, I, Steck, T, Sendtner, M. Leukaemia inhibitory factor gene mutations in infertile women. Mol Hum Reprod 1999; 5(6):581–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulam, CB, Bustillo, M, Soenksen, DM, Britten, S. Ultrasonographic predictors of implantation after assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 1994; 62(5):1004–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaidi, J, Campbell, S, Pittrof, R, Tan, SL. Endometrial thickness, morphology, vascular penetration and velocimetry in predicting implantation in an in vitro fertilization program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6(3):191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remohi, J, Ardiles, G, Garcia-Velasco, JA, Gaitan, P, Simon, C, Pellicer, A. Endometrial thickness and serum oestradiol concentrations as predictors of outcome in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(10):2271–2276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedler, S, Schenker, JG, Herman, A, Lewin, A. The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments: a critical review. Hum Reprod Update 1996; 2(4):323–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierson, RA. Imaging the endometrium: are there predictors of uterine receptivity?J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25(5):360–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pairleitner, H, Steiner, H, Hasenoehrl, G, Staudach, A. Three-dimensional power Doppler sonography: imaging and quantifying blood flow and vascularization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14(2):139–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schild, RL, Indefrei, D, Eschweiler, S, Vand, V, Fimmers, R, Hansmann, M. Three-dimensional endometrial volume calculation and pregnancy rate in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod 1999; 14(5):1255–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaman, C, Ebner, T, Sommergruber, M, Polz, W, Tews, G. Role of three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurement of endometrium volume as a predictor of pregnancy outcome in an IVF-ET program: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril 2000; 74(4):797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupesic, S, Bekavac, I, Bjelos, D, Kurjak, A. Assessment of endometrial receptivity by transvaginal color Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization procedures. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20(2):125–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, HM, Chiang, CH, Huang, HY, Chao, AS, Wang, HS, Soong, YK. Detection of the subendometrial vascularization flow index by three-dimensional ultrasound may be useful for predicting the pregnancy rate for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 79(3):507–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvela, IY, Sladkevicius, P, Kelly, S, Ojha, K, Campbell, S, Nargund, G. Evaluation of endometrial receptivity during in-vitro fertilization using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26(7):765–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckett, WM. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2006; 85(3):728–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, JB, Martins, AM, Baruffi, RL, Mauri, AL, Petersen, CG, Felipe, V et al. Increased implantation and pregnancy rates obtained by placing the tip of the transfer catheter in the central area of the endometrial cavity. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9(4):435–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coroleu, B, Barri, PN, Carreras, O, Martinez, F, Parriego, M, Hereter, L et al. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(2):341–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romundstad, LB, Romundstad, PR, Sunde, A, , D V, Skjaerven, R, Vatten, LJ. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI; a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(9):2353–2358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckett, WM. A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 80(4):1037–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosmas, IP, Janssens, R, Munck, L, Al Turki, H, , EJ, Tournaye, H et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not offer any benefit in clinical outcome: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22(5):1327–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanchin, R, Righini, C, Olivennes, F, Taylor, S, Ziegler, D, Frydman, R. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(7):1968–1974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchin, R, Ayoubi, JM, Righini, C, Olivennes, F, Schonauer, LM, Frydman, R. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(6):1115–1119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter Bendus, AE, Mayer, JF, Shipley, SK, Catherino, WH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(6):1608–1615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baart, EB, Martini, E, d, B I, Macklon, NS, Galjaard, RJ, Fauser, BC et al. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(1):223–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2000 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 2004; 81(5):1207–1220.
Pinborg, A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11(6):575–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandell, A, Bergh, C, Lundin, K. Selection of patients suitable for one-embryo transfer may reduce the rate of multiple births by half without impairment of overall birth rates. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(12):2520–2525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurin, A, Hausken, J, Hillensjo, T, Jablonowska, B, Pinborg, A, Strandell, A et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(23):2392–2402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landuyt, L, Verheyen, G, Tournaye, H, Camus, M, Devroey, P, Steirteghem, A. New Belgian embryo transfer policy leads to sharp decrease in multiple pregnancy rate. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13(6):765–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handyside, AH, Kontogianni, EH, Hardy, K, Winston, RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990; 344(6268):768–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquez, C, Sandalinas, M, Bahce, M, Alikani, M, Munne, S. Chromosome abnormalities in 1255 cleavage-stage human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2000; 1(1):17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Simon, C, Vidal, F, Rodrigo, L, Pehlivan, T, Remohi, J et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(1):182–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staessen, C, Platteau, P, Assche, E, Michiels, A, Tournaye, H, Camus, M et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(12):2849–2858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, JC, Boelaert, K, Geraedts, J, Harton, G, Kearns, WG, Moutou, C et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection V: cycles from January to December 2002 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2003. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(1):3–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donoso, P, Staessen, C, Fauser, BC, Devroey, P. Current value of preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening in IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2007; 13(1):15–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianaroli, L, Magli, MC, Ferraretti, AP, Munne, S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril 1999; 72(5):837–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahraman, S, Bahce, M, Samli, H, Imirzalioglu, N, Yakisn, K, Cengiz, G et al. Healthy births and ongoing pregnancies obtained by preimplantation genetic diagnosis in patients with advanced maternal age and recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(9):2003–2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, M, dV, Dorn C, Van, dV. Outcome of laser-assisted polar body biopsy and aneuploidy testing. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9(4):425–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S, Weier, HU, Stein, J, Grifo, J, Cohen, J. A fast and efficient method for simultaneous X and Y in situ hybridization of human blastomeres. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993; 10(1):82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munne, S, Magli, C, Cohen, J, Morton, P, Sadowy, S, Gianaroli, L et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod 1999; 14(9):2191–2199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pehlivan, T, Rubio, C, Rodrigo, L, Romero, J, Remohi, J, Simon, C et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6(2):232–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilding, M, Forman, R, Hogewind, G, Di Matteo, L, Zullo, F, Cappiello, F et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for the treatment of failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer and habitual abortion. Fertil Steril 2004; 81(5):1302–1307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S, Chen, S, Fischer, J, Colls, P, Zheng, X, Stevens, J et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005; 84(2):331–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellicer, A, Rubio, C, Vidal, F, Minguez, Y, Gimenez, C, Egozcue, J et al. In vitro fertilization plus preimplantation genetic diagnosis in patients with recurrent miscarriage: an analysis of chromosome abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 1999; 71(6):1033–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Pehlivan, T, Rodrigo, L, Simon, C, Remohi, J, Pellicer, A. Embryo aneuploidy screening for unexplained recurrent miscarriage: a minireview. Am J Reprod Immunol 2005; 53(4):159–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silber, S, Escudero, T, Lenahan, K, Abdelhadi, I, Kilani, Z, Munne, S. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction. Fertil Steril 2003; 79(1):30–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platteau, P, Staessen, C, Michiels, A, Tournaye, H, Steirteghem, A, Liebaers, I et al. Comparison of the aneuploidy frequency in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermic men. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(7):1570–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Twisk, M, Mastenbroek, S, Wely, M, Heineman, MJ, dV, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(1):CD005291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, J, Wale, P, Surrey, E, Schoolcraft, W. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (Suppl. 2):249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werlin, L, Rodi, I, DeCherney, A, Marello, E, Hill, D, Munne, S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as both a therapeutic and diagnostic tool in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2003; 80(2):467–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S, Fischer, J, Warner, A, Chen, S, Zouves, C, Cohen, J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 2006; 85(2):326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baart, EB, Opstal, D, Los, FJ, Fauser, BC, Martini, E. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of two blastomeres from day 3 frozen-thawed embryos followed by analysis of the remaining embryo on day 5. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(3):685–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coonen, E, Derhaag, JG, Dumoulin, JC, Wissen, LC, Bras, M, Janssen, M et al. Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(2):316–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Los, FJ, Opstal, D, , BC. The development of cytogenetically normal, abnormal and mosaic embryos: a theoretical model. Hum Reprod Update 2004; 10(1):79–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S, Sandalinas, M, Escudero, T, Marquez, C, Cohen, J. Chromosome mosaicism in cleavage-stage human embryos evidence of a maternal age effect. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 4(3):223–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilton, L. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and chromosome analysis of blastomeres using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11(1):33–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voullaire, L, Slater, H, Williamson, R, Wilton, L. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 2000; 106(2):210–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilton, L, Voullaire, L, Sargeant, P, Williamson, R, McBain, J. Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2003; 80(4):860–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilton, L, Williamson, R, McBain, J, Edgar, D, Voullaire, L. Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N Engl J Med 2001; 345(21):1537–1541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×