Comparing blastocyst quality and live birth rates of intravaginal culture using INVOcell™ to traditional in vitro incubation in a randomized open-label prospective controlled trial

Kevin J Doody, E Jason Broome, Kathleen M Doody, Kevin J Doody, E Jason Broome, Kathleen M Doody

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to to compare the efficacy of intravaginal culture (IVC) of embryos in INVOcell™ (INVO Bioscience, MA, USA) to traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF) incubators in a laboratory setting using a mild pre-determined stimulation regimen based solely on anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) and body weight with minimal ultrasound monitoring. The primary endpoint examined was total quality blastocysts expressed as a percentage of total oocytes placed in incubation. Secondary endpoints included percentage of quality blastocysts transferred, pregnancy, and live birth rates.

Methods: In this prospective randomized open-label controlled single-center study, 40 women aged <38 years of age with a body mass index (BMI) of <36 and an AMH of 1-3 ng/mL were randomized prior to trigger to receive either IVC or IVF. Controlled ovarian stimulation was administered with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in a fixed gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist cycle based solely on AMH and body weight. A single ultrasound-monitoring visit was performed on the 10th day of stimulation. One or two embryos were transferred following 5 days of culture.

Results: IVF produced a greater percentage of total quality embryos as compared to IVC (50.6 vs. 30.7 %, p = 0.0007, respectively). There was no significant difference between in IVF and IVC in the percentage of quality blastocysts transferred (97.5 vs. 84.9 %, p = 0.09) or live birth rate (60 % IVF, 55 % IVC).

Conclusions: IVF was shown to be superior to IVC in creating quality blastocysts. However, both IVF and IVC produced identical blastocysts for transfer resulting in similar live birth rates. IVC using INVOcell™ is effective and may broaden access to fertility care in selected patient populations by ameliorating the need for a traditional IVF laboratory setting. Further studies will help elucidate the potential physiological, psychological, geographic, and financial impact of IVC on the delivery of fertility care.

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology; INVO; INVOcell; IVC; IVF; In vitro fertilization; Intravaginal culture; Mild stimulation; Minimal monitoring.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Total number of embryos greater than or equal to 2BB as percentage of the total number of oocytes incubated (IVC = 127, IVF = 156) p = 0.0007
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Embryos greater than or equal to 2BB as a percentage of the total number of embryos transferred (IVC = 33, IVF = 36) p = 0.09
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cleaved embryos distributed by Gardner Grading System for IVC and IVF (IVC = 81, IVF = 115)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Pregnancy rates for IVC (n = 20) and IVF (n = 20)

References

    1. Chambers GM, Hoang VP, Sullivan EA, Chapman MG, Ishihara O, Zegers-Hochschild F, et al. The impact of consumer affordability on access to assisted reproductive technologies and embryo transfer practices: an international analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:191–198. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.005.
    1. Mortimer D, Mortimer ST. Quality and risk management in the IVF laboratory. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
    1. Ranoux C, Aubriot FX, Dubuisson JB, Cardone V, Fonlot H, Poirot C, et al. A new in vitro fertilization technique: intravaginal culture. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:654–657.
    1. Ranoux C. In vivo embryo culture device. In: Nagy ZP, Varghese A, Agarwal A, editors. Practical manual of in vitro fertilization. Berlin: Springer; 2012. pp. 161–169.
    1. Taymor ML, Ranoux CJ, Gross GL. Natural oocyte retrieval with intravaginal fertilization: a simplified approach to in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:888–891.
    1. Sharma S, Hewitt J. Intravaginal culture for IVF. Bombay Hospital J. 1993;35:155–160.
    1. Fukuda M, Fukuda K, Ranoux C. Unexpected low oxygen tension of intravaginal culture. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1293–1295. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019374.
    1. Sterzik K, Rosenbusch B, Sasse V, Wolf A, Beier HM, Lauritzen C. A new variation of in-vitro fertilization: intravaginal culture of human oocytes and cleavage stages. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:83–86. doi: 10.1093/humrep/4.suppl_1.83.
    1. Ranoux C, Seibel MM. New techniques in fertilization: intravaginal culture and microvolume straw. J In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer. 1990;7:6–8. doi: 10.1007/BF01133876.
    1. Lucena E, Saa AM, Navarro DE, Pulido C, Lombana O, Moran A. INVO procedure: minimally invasive IVF as an alternative treatment option for infertile couples. Sci World J. 2012;2:1–6. doi: 10.1100/2012/571596.
    1. García-Ferreyra J, Hilario R, Luna D, Villegas L, Romero R, Zavala P, et al. In vivo culture system using the INVOcell device shows similar pregnancy and implantation rates to those obtained from in vivo culture system in ICSI procedures. Clin Med Insights: Reproductive Health. 2015;9:7–11.
    1. Mitri F, Esfandiari N, Coogan-Prewer J, Chang P, Bentov Y, McNaught J, Klement AH, Casper RF. A pilot study to evaluate a device for the intravaginal culture of embryos. Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2015), in press.
    1. Rehman KS, Bukulmez O, Langley M, Carr BR, Nackley AC, Doody KM, et al. Late stages of embryo progression are a much better predictor of clinical pregnancy than early cleavage in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cycles with blastocyst-stage transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:1041–52. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.014.
    1. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer A committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:44–46. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.038.
    1. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Human Reprod Update. 2015;21:411–26. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmv016.
    1. Van Blerkom J, Ombelet W, Klerkx E, Klerkx E, Janssen M, Dhont N, et al. First births with a simplified culture system for clinical IVF and embryo culture. RBM Online. 2014;28:310–320.
    1. Doody KJ, Broome J, Doody KM. A randomized prospective controlled trial confirms the safety and efficacy of extended intravaginal culture of embryos with INVOcell compared to laboratory incubators. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:e124–e125. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.425.
    1. Bonaventura L, Ahlering P, Morris R, Mouchel J, Scheiber M, Batzofin J. The INVOcell, a new medical device for intra vaginal fertilization and culture. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(3):S164. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.438.
    1. Lane M, Mitchell M, Cashman KS, Feil D, Wakefield S, Zander-Fox DL. To QC or not to QC: the key to a consistent laboratory? Reprod Fertil Dev. 2008;20:23–32. doi: 10.1071/RD07161.
    1. Zhang JQ, Li XL, Peng Y, Guo X, Heng BC, Tong GQ. Reduction in exposure of human embryos outside the incubator enhances embryo quality and blastulation rate. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20:510–515. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.12.027.
    1. Smith GD, Takayama S, Swain JE. Rethinking in vitro embryo culture: new developments in culture platforms and potential to improve assisted reproductive technologies. Biol Reprod. 2012;86:62. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.111.095778.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren