Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

National survey on use of time-lapse imaging systems in IVF laboratories

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Several time-lapse imaging (TLI) systems for non-invasive continuous monitoring of developing embryos are currently available. The present study explored the prevalence, means of acquisition, and clinical application of TLI systems in USA in vitro fertilization (IVF) laboratories.

Methods

An online cross-sectional survey of 294 USA IVF laboratory directors was conducted in February and March 2016. Those directing more than one laboratory were asked to complete the survey for their home program and for their smallest laboratory by number of IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle starts. Use of TLI was analyzed using logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR).

Results

Of 294 directors surveyed, 162 (55%) reported data on 204 laboratories. Thirty-five laboratories (17%) possessed at least one TLI system (median 2, interquartile range 1–4, total range 1–11). The more oocyte retrievals a laboratory performed annually, the more likely the laboratory was to possess a TLI system. Fifteen laboratories (43%) purchased their own systems, while others leased, loaned, or received donated systems. Twenty-five laboratories (71%) reported using TLI for embryo selection; all used TLI always, or usually, in combination with standard morphology evaluation. Twenty laboratories (80%) offered TLI to all patients. Some laboratories charged patients for TLI. Directors with TLI systems were more inclined to believe that TLI has value for embryo selection in clinical IVF.

Conclusions

TLI system possession in USA IVF laboratories is low, although positively associated with the number of retrievals performed and with directors’ opinions on the technology’s utility. Over 70% of laboratories with TLI systems use them clinically, and less than half purchased their systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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):617–31. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmu023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Racowsky C, Kovacs P, Martins WP. A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(7):1025–30. doi:10.1007/s10815-015-0510-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 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):1115–21. doi:10.1038/nbt.1686.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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):474–80. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.07.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):332–7. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, Perez-Cano I, Munoz M, Meseguer M. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25(4):371–81. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.06.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Desai N, Ploskonka S, Goodman L, Austin C, Goldberg J, Falcone T. Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12(1):54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kirkegaard K, Kesmodel US, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(10):2643–51. doi:10.1093/humrep/det300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aparicio-Ruiz B, Basile N, Perez Albala S, Bronet F, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Automatic time-lapse instrument is superior to single-point morphology observation for selecting viable embryos: retrospective study in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. 2016 Nov;106(6):1379-1385.e10. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1117.

  11. Diamond MP, Suraj V, Behnke EJ, Yang X, Angle MJ, Lambe-Steinmiller JC, et al. Using the Eeva test 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):61–8. doi:10.1007/s10815-014-0366-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on day 3. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2231–44. doi:10.1093/humrep/dew188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29(6):729–36. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2658–71. doi:10.1093/humrep/der256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1481–1489 e10. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(3):656–662e1. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2015.11.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cetinkaya M, Pirkevi C, Yelke H, Colakoglu YK, Atayurt Z, Kahraman S. Relative kinetic expressions defining cleavage synchronicity are better predictors of blastocyst formation and quality than absolute time points. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(1):27–35. doi:10.1007/s10815-014-0341-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2015.10.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kahraman S, Çetinkaya M, Pirkevi C, Yelke H, Kumtepe Y. Comparison of blastocyst development and cycle outcome in patients with eSET using either conventional or time lapse incubators. A prospective study of good prognosis patients. J Reprod Biotechnol Fertil. 2012;3(2):55–61. doi:10.1177/205891581200300204.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kaser DJ, Bormann CL, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. Eeva™ pregnancy pilot study: a randomized controlled trial of single embryo transfer (SET) on day 3 or day 5 with or without time-lapse imaging (TLI) selection. Fertil Steril. 106(3):e312. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.886.

  21. Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the embryo scope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1287–1294.e5. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2014.07.738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Armstrong S, Arroll N, Cree LM, Jordan V, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015(2):Cd011320. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011320.

  23. Polanski LT, Coelho Neto MA, Nastri CO, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Time-lapse embryo imaging for improving reproductive outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol : Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(4):394–401. doi:10.1002/uog.13428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Andrey V. Dolinko

    Present address: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, 101 Dudley Street, Providence, RI, 02905, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, ASB I-3, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Andrey V. Dolinko, L. V. Farland, D. J. Kaser, S. A. Missmer & C. Racowsky

  2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    L. V. Farland & S. A. Missmer

  3. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    S. A. Missmer

Authors
  1. Andrey V. Dolinko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. V. Farland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. J. Kaser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. A. Missmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Racowsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrey V. Dolinko.

Ethics declarations

This study was considered exempt by the Partners HealthCare Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of interest

C.R. received financial support and the EEVA System and Test on loan from Progyny to perform a different study. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dolinko, A.V., Farland, L.V., Kaser, D.J. et al. National survey on use of time-lapse imaging systems in IVF laboratories. J Assist Reprod Genet 34, 1167–1172 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0964-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0964-9

Keywords