A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the “good prognosis” patient
Objective To determine whether the routine use of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in “good prognosis” women improves in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome. Design Randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study. Setting Private infertility clinic. Patient(s) Infertile women predicted...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Fertility and sterility 2009-05, Vol.91 (5), p.1731-1738 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1738 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1731 |
| container_title | Fertility and sterility |
| container_volume | 91 |
| creator | Meyer, Liza R., M.S Klipstein, Sigal, M.D Hazlett, William D., Ph.D Nasta, Tricia, M.S Mangan, Patricia, B.S Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D |
| description | Objective To determine whether the routine use of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in “good prognosis” women improves in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome. Design Randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study. Setting Private infertility clinic. Patient(s) Infertile women predicted to have a good prognosis as defined by: age |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.162 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67207457</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0015028208005220</els_id><sourcerecordid>67207457</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-244fd338f3f7fcb0fd4adab34c58ede07c77ad49de5cff366861a8c15037d9493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks-OFCEQh4nRuOPqKxgueuu2oJtu5mKybvyXbOJBPRMGipGxG0ZgNllP-yD6cvsk0pmJm3jyAhy-qvrlowihDFoGbHi1ax2mEnKpZ8sBZAu8ZQN_QFZMiKERg-gekhUAEw1wyc_Ik5x3ADCwkT8mZ0xK6DmMK5Iu6D7FvEdT_DXSpIONs_-JlpoYSorTVJ8leT3R6CqKft5POhRdfAx0iwGLNzSbhBh82FIfaPmG9O721zZGu_Tehph9vrv9Tfe1CEN5Sh45PWV8drrPydd3b79cfmiuPr3_eHlx1RgBY2l43zvbddJ1bnRmA8722upN1xsh0SKMZhy17dcWhXGuGwY5MC0NE9CNdt2vu3Py8ti3hvhxwFzU7LPBqcbHeMhqGKuBXowVlEfQVBM5oVP75GedbhQDtfhWO3XvWy2-FXBVfdfS56cZh82M9r7wJLgCL06AzkZPrgo2Pv_lOOv5AP3CvTlyWI1ce0wqmyrLoPWp_o2y0f9Pmtf_NDGTD77O_Y43mHfxkEI1rpjKXIH6vOzHsh4gAQTn0P0BWli99g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67207457</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the “good prognosis” patient</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Meyer, Liza R., M.S ; Klipstein, Sigal, M.D ; Hazlett, William D., Ph.D ; Nasta, Tricia, M.S ; Mangan, Patricia, B.S ; Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Liza R., M.S ; Klipstein, Sigal, M.D ; Hazlett, William D., Ph.D ; Nasta, Tricia, M.S ; Mangan, Patricia, B.S ; Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To determine whether the routine use of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in “good prognosis” women improves in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome. Design Randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study. Setting Private infertility clinic. Patient(s) Infertile women predicted to have a good prognosis as defined by: age <39 years, normal ovarian reserve, body mass index <30 kg/m2 , presence of ejaculated sperm, normal uterus, ≤2 previous failed IVF cycles. Intervention(s) Patients were randomized to the PGS group or the control group on day 3 after oocyte retrieval; 23 women underwent blastomere biopsy on day 3 after fertilization (PGS group), and 24 women underwent routine IVF (control group). All embryos were transferred on day 5 or 6 after fertilization. Main Outcome Measure(s) Pregnancy, implantation, multiple gestation, and live birth rates. Result(s) No statistically significant differences were found between the PGS and control groups with respect to clinical pregnancy rate (52.4% versus 72.7%). However, the embryo implantation rate was statistically significantly lower for the PGS group (31.7% versus 62.3%) as were the live birth rate (28.6% versus 68.2%) and the multiple birth rate (9.1% versus 46.7%). Conclusion(s) In a “good prognosis” population of women, PGS does not appear to improve pregnancy, implantation, or live birth rates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-0282</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-5653</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.162</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18804207</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FESTAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Female ; Fertilization in Vitro ; FISH ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; implantation rate ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence ; Internal Medicine ; IVF ; Karyotyping ; Medical sciences ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; PGD ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Rate ; Preimplantation Diagnosis ; Preimplantation genetic screening ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies</subject><ispartof>Fertility and sterility, 2009-05, Vol.91 (5), p.1731-1738</ispartof><rights>American Society for Reproductive Medicine</rights><rights>2009 American Society for Reproductive Medicine</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-244fd338f3f7fcb0fd4adab34c58ede07c77ad49de5cff366861a8c15037d9493</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-244fd338f3f7fcb0fd4adab34c58ede07c77ad49de5cff366861a8c15037d9493</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028208005220$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=21426047$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18804207$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Liza R., M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klipstein, Sigal, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hazlett, William D., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nasta, Tricia, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mangan, Patricia, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D</creatorcontrib><title>A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the “good prognosis” patient</title><title>Fertility and sterility</title><addtitle>Fertil Steril</addtitle><description>Objective To determine whether the routine use of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in “good prognosis” women improves in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome. Design Randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study. Setting Private infertility clinic. Patient(s) Infertile women predicted to have a good prognosis as defined by: age <39 years, normal ovarian reserve, body mass index <30 kg/m2 , presence of ejaculated sperm, normal uterus, ≤2 previous failed IVF cycles. Intervention(s) Patients were randomized to the PGS group or the control group on day 3 after oocyte retrieval; 23 women underwent blastomere biopsy on day 3 after fertilization (PGS group), and 24 women underwent routine IVF (control group). All embryos were transferred on day 5 or 6 after fertilization. Main Outcome Measure(s) Pregnancy, implantation, multiple gestation, and live birth rates. Result(s) No statistically significant differences were found between the PGS and control groups with respect to clinical pregnancy rate (52.4% versus 72.7%). However, the embryo implantation rate was statistically significantly lower for the PGS group (31.7% versus 62.3%) as were the live birth rate (28.6% versus 68.2%) and the multiple birth rate (9.1% versus 46.7%). Conclusion(s) In a “good prognosis” population of women, PGS does not appear to improve pregnancy, implantation, or live birth rates.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fertilization in Vitro</subject><subject>FISH</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>implantation rate</subject><subject>In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>IVF</subject><subject>Karyotyping</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>PGD</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Rate</subject><subject>Preimplantation Diagnosis</subject><subject>Preimplantation genetic screening</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><issn>0015-0282</issn><issn>1556-5653</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks-OFCEQh4nRuOPqKxgueuu2oJtu5mKybvyXbOJBPRMGipGxG0ZgNllP-yD6cvsk0pmJm3jyAhy-qvrlowihDFoGbHi1ax2mEnKpZ8sBZAu8ZQN_QFZMiKERg-gekhUAEw1wyc_Ik5x3ADCwkT8mZ0xK6DmMK5Iu6D7FvEdT_DXSpIONs_-JlpoYSorTVJ8leT3R6CqKft5POhRdfAx0iwGLNzSbhBh82FIfaPmG9O721zZGu_Tehph9vrv9Tfe1CEN5Sh45PWV8drrPydd3b79cfmiuPr3_eHlx1RgBY2l43zvbddJ1bnRmA8722upN1xsh0SKMZhy17dcWhXGuGwY5MC0NE9CNdt2vu3Py8ti3hvhxwFzU7LPBqcbHeMhqGKuBXowVlEfQVBM5oVP75GedbhQDtfhWO3XvWy2-FXBVfdfS56cZh82M9r7wJLgCL06AzkZPrgo2Pv_lOOv5AP3CvTlyWI1ce0wqmyrLoPWp_o2y0f9Pmtf_NDGTD77O_Y43mHfxkEI1rpjKXIH6vOzHsh4gAQTn0P0BWli99g</recordid><startdate>20090501</startdate><enddate>20090501</enddate><creator>Meyer, Liza R., M.S</creator><creator>Klipstein, Sigal, M.D</creator><creator>Hazlett, William D., Ph.D</creator><creator>Nasta, Tricia, M.S</creator><creator>Mangan, Patricia, B.S</creator><creator>Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090501</creationdate><title>A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the “good prognosis” patient</title><author>Meyer, Liza R., M.S ; Klipstein, Sigal, M.D ; Hazlett, William D., Ph.D ; Nasta, Tricia, M.S ; Mangan, Patricia, B.S ; Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-244fd338f3f7fcb0fd4adab34c58ede07c77ad49de5cff366861a8c15037d9493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fertilization in Vitro</topic><topic>FISH</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>implantation rate</topic><topic>In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>IVF</topic><topic>Karyotyping</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>PGD</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Rate</topic><topic>Preimplantation Diagnosis</topic><topic>Preimplantation genetic screening</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Liza R., M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klipstein, Sigal, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hazlett, William D., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nasta, Tricia, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mangan, Patricia, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Fertility and sterility</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meyer, Liza R., M.S</au><au>Klipstein, Sigal, M.D</au><au>Hazlett, William D., Ph.D</au><au>Nasta, Tricia, M.S</au><au>Mangan, Patricia, B.S</au><au>Karande, Vishvanath C., M.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the “good prognosis” patient</atitle><jtitle>Fertility and sterility</jtitle><addtitle>Fertil Steril</addtitle><date>2009-05-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1731</spage><epage>1738</epage><pages>1731-1738</pages><issn>0015-0282</issn><eissn>1556-5653</eissn><coden>FESTAS</coden><abstract>Objective To determine whether the routine use of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in “good prognosis” women improves in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome. Design Randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study. Setting Private infertility clinic. Patient(s) Infertile women predicted to have a good prognosis as defined by: age <39 years, normal ovarian reserve, body mass index <30 kg/m2 , presence of ejaculated sperm, normal uterus, ≤2 previous failed IVF cycles. Intervention(s) Patients were randomized to the PGS group or the control group on day 3 after oocyte retrieval; 23 women underwent blastomere biopsy on day 3 after fertilization (PGS group), and 24 women underwent routine IVF (control group). All embryos were transferred on day 5 or 6 after fertilization. Main Outcome Measure(s) Pregnancy, implantation, multiple gestation, and live birth rates. Result(s) No statistically significant differences were found between the PGS and control groups with respect to clinical pregnancy rate (52.4% versus 72.7%). However, the embryo implantation rate was statistically significantly lower for the PGS group (31.7% versus 62.3%) as were the live birth rate (28.6% versus 68.2%) and the multiple birth rate (9.1% versus 46.7%). Conclusion(s) In a “good prognosis” population of women, PGS does not appear to improve pregnancy, implantation, or live birth rates.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>18804207</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.162</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0015-0282 |
| ispartof | Fertility and sterility, 2009-05, Vol.91 (5), p.1731-1738 |
| issn | 0015-0282 1556-5653 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67207457 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Female Fertilization in Vitro FISH Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans implantation rate In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence Internal Medicine IVF Karyotyping Medical sciences Obstetrics and Gynecology PGD Pregnancy Pregnancy Rate Preimplantation Diagnosis Preimplantation genetic screening Prognosis Prospective Studies |
| title | A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the “good prognosis” patient |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T02%3A20%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20prospective%20randomized%20controlled%20trial%20of%20preimplantation%20genetic%20screening%20in%20the%20%E2%80%9Cgood%20prognosis%E2%80%9D%20patient&rft.jtitle=Fertility%20and%20sterility&rft.au=Meyer,%20Liza%20R.,%20M.S&rft.date=2009-05-01&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1731&rft.epage=1738&rft.pages=1731-1738&rft.issn=0015-0282&rft.eissn=1556-5653&rft.coden=FESTAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.162&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67207457%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67207457&rft_id=info:pmid/18804207&rft_els_id=S0015028208005220&rfr_iscdi=true |