A double-blind randomized controlled trial investigating a time-lapse algorithm for selecting Day 5 blastocysts for transfer

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can use of a commercially available time-lapse algorithm for Day 5 blastocyst selection improve pregnancy rates compared with morphology alone? SUMMARY ANSWER The use of a time-lapse selection model to choose blastocysts for fresh single embryo transfer on Day 5 did not improve ongoing pregnancy rate compared to morphology alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence from time-lapse monitoring suggests correlations between timing of key developmental events and embryo viability. No good quality evidence exists to support improved pregnancy rates following time-lapse selection. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial including 776 randomized patients was performed between 2018 and 2021. Patients with at least two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 were allocated by a computer randomization program in a proportion of 1:1 into either the control group, whereby single blastocysts were selected for transfer by morphology alone, or the intervention group whereby final selection was decided by a commercially available time-lapse model. The embryologists at the time of blastocyst morphological scoring were blinded to which study group the patients would be randomized, and the physician and patients were blind to which group they were allocated until after the primary outcome was known. The primary outcome was number of ongoing pregnancies in the two groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS From 10 Nordic IVF clinics, 776 patients with a minimum of two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 (D5) were randomized into one of the two study groups. A commercial time-lapse model decided the final selection of blastocysts for 387 patients in the intervention (time-lapse) group, and blastocysts with the highest morphological score were transferred for 389 patients in the control group. Only single embryo transfers in fresh cycles were performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE In the full analysis set, the ongoing pregnancy rate for the time-lapse group was 47.4% (175/369) and 48.1% (181/376) in the control group. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups: mean difference −0.7% (95% CI −8.2, 6.7, P = 0.90). Pregnancy rate (60.2% versus 59.0%, mean difference 1.1%, 95% CI −6.2, 8.4, P = 0.81) and early pregnancy loss (21.2% versus 18.5%, mean difference 2.7%, 95% CI −5.2, 10.6, P = 0.55) were the same for the time-lapse and the control group. Subgroup analyses showed that patie