Ask Our Doctors – Archive
Our Medical Directors are outstanding physicians that you will find to be very personable and compassionate, who take care to ensure that you have the most cutting-edge fertility treatments at your disposal. This is your outlet to ask your questions to the doctors.
I started my IVF journey with taking clomid to regulate my cycles. After 4 rounds with no success I was referred to a fertility doctor. After bloodwork, consultation, and semen analysis it was determined that I have PCO, endometriosis (diagnosed in 8/11), and low motility and count of sperm. We did 1 IUI and it was unsuccessful. We did our first egg retrieval in October 2020 (28 eggs, 26 mature, 22 fertilized, 11 embryos and 8 normal) . I could not do a fresh transfer because my ovaries were over stimulated. I did my first FET in 11/20. My HCG was 30, then 58, and then 43. It ended with a chemical pregnancy. I did my second FET 2/2021 with a HCG wash and intralipids. My HCG level was 50, then 71, and finally 31 again ending in a chemical pregnancy. I did a hysteroscopy with a full DNC in April 2021. The doctor found endometriosis and it was removed. There was nothing found inside of the uterus and the tissue sample came back normal. I did my third FET in July 2021 and it did not take. Again I had an HCG wash and intralipids prior to the transfer. I did my 4th FET in August and it did not take. Again HCG wash and intralipids prior to the transfer. My doctor suggested that I try to bank healthier embryos. He thinks that since I have PCOS and I was not on a Keto diet and not taking Metformin for the months leading up to my first retrieval that my embryos were all poor quality (even the ones that came back normal from the PGT testing). My partner and I limited drinking, we started to eat a Keto/ Mediterranean diet, I stopped drinking coffee, I drank bone broth and anything I could find on the internet. I read “It Starts With the Egg” book and took every supplement suggested for people with Endo and PCOS. We tried to be healthy and go on walks daily. We did our second retrieval in 1/22. This time we used the ZyMot for the sperm to help get healthier sperm. This round we had all the same numbers (32 eggs, 26 mature, 21 fertilized, 6 embryos and 4 normal) except the embryos. Again I could not do a fresh transfer due to the hyperstimulation of my ovaries. We have 8 total “healthy” embryos from both retrievals. I am not sure what else to do. I have my next FET scheduled this month. I am doing a PRP, HCG wash and intralipids. My current med protocol is
o Estrace (Estradiol) 2 mg, One tablet by mouth three times daily plus 1 tablet vaginally twice daily
o Prednisone 10 mg, 1 tablet twice daily
o LDN (Low Dose Naltrexone) 4.5 mg, Take 1 tablet by mouth daily at bed time
o Neupogen 300 mcg, Inject 60 mcg (20 units) subcutaneously once daily as directed
o Aspirin, low dose 81 mg, One tablet by mouth daily
o Prenatal Vitamin one qd -, Take one by mouth daily
o Metformin HCL 500 mg, Take one 500 mg tablet by mouth twice daily
o Plaquenil 200 mg, Take one (1) tablet by mouth once daily as directed
o Lovenox 30 mg, Inject (1) prefilled 30 mg syringe subcutaneously once daily
o Endometrin 100 mg, 1 tablet vaginally twice daily
o Progesterone In Oil 100 mg, Inject 2 ml (100mg) intramuscularly once daily
I did send a message to my doctor in the portal to see if I should be on Lupron injections due to me history of Endo. I am not sure if I should continue to do more FETs or if there is something else wrong that is not diagnosed and not being treated. I am 33 years old and I will be 34 in 3/22. I got pregnant at 25 (2013) and gave birth at 26 (2014) to a health baby. What is the next step?
This is unquestionably an implantation dysfunction. In my opinion, it is likely an immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID) and given that you have had one child previously it sounds like a possible alloimmune (rather than autoimmune) IID. We should talk.
I suggest you call my assistant, Patti and set up an online consultation with me.
A. IMPLANTATION DYSFUNCTION:
Implantation dysfunction is unfortunately often overlooked as an important cause of IVF failure. In the pursuit of optimizing outcome with IVF, the clinician has a profound responsibility to meticulously assess and address this important issue if IVF success is to be optimized. This is especially relevant in cases of “unexplained IVF failure, Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL) and in women suspected of having underlying anatomical and immunologic factors. Doing so will not only maximize the chance of a viable pregnancy but enhancing placentation, will at the same time promote the noble objective of optimizing the quality of life after birth.”
IVF success rates have been improving over the last decade. The average live birth rate per embryo transfer in the U.S.A for women under 40y using their own eggs , is currently better than 1:3 women. However, there is still a wide variation from program to program for IVF live birth rates, ranging from 20% to near 50%. Based upon these statistics, the majority of women undergoing IVF in the United States require two or more attempts to have a baby. IVF practitioners in the United States commonly attribute the wide dichotomy in IVF success rates to variability in expertise of the various embryology laboratories. This is far from accurate. In fact, other factors such as wide variations in patient selection and the failure to develop individualized protocols for ovarian stimulation or to address those infective, anatomical and immunologic factors that influence embryo implantation are at least equally important.
About 80% of IVF failures are due to “embryo incompetency” that is largely due to an irregular quota of chromosomes (aneuploidy) which is usually related to advancing age of the woman and is further influenced by other factors such as the protocol selected for ovarian stimulation, diminished ovarian reserve (DOR)m and severe male factor infertility. However in about 20% of dysfunctional cases embryo implantation is the cause of failure.
Anatomical Endo-uterine Lesions: This blog article will focus on implantation dysfunction and IVF failure due to:
•Anatomical abnormalities in the uterine cavity (e.g. scarring, polyps and encroaching fibroid tumors)
•A thin endometrial lining
•Immunologic rejection of the embryos
Several studies performed both in the United States and abroad have confirmed that a dye X-Ray or hysterosalpingogram (HSG) will fail to identify small endouterine surface lesions in >20% of cases. This is significant because even small uterine lesions have the potential to adversely affect implantation. Hysteroscopy is the traditional method for evaluating the integrity of the uterine cavity in preparation for IVF. It also permits resection of most uterine surface lesions, such as submucous uterine fibroids (myomas), intrauterine adhesions and endometrial or placental polyps. All of these can interfere with implantation by producing a local “inflammatory- type” response similar in nature to that which is caused by an intrauterine contraceptive device. Hysterosonography (syn HSN/ saline ultrasound examination) and hysteroscopy have all but supplanted HSG to assess the uterine cavity in preparation for IVF. HSN which is less invasive and far less expensive than is than hysteroscopy involves a small amount of a sterile saline solution is injected into the uterine cavity, whereupon a vaginal ultrasound examination is performed to assess the contour of the uterine cavity.
Endometrial Thickness: As far back as in 1989 I first reported on the finding that ultrasound assessment of the late proliferative phase endometrium following ovarian stimulation in preparation for IVF, permits better identification of those candidates who are least likely to conceive. We noted that the ideal thickness of the endometrium at the time of ovulation or egg retrieval is >9 mm and that a thickness of less than 8 mm bodes poorly for a successful outcome following IVF.
Then in 1993, I demonstrated that sildenafil (Viagra) introduced into the vagina prior to hCG administration can improve endometrial growth in many women with poor endometrial development. Viagra’s mechanism of action is improvement in uterine blood flow with improved estrogen delivery…thereby enhancing endometrial development.
Immunologic factors: These also play a role in IVF failure. Some women develop antibodies to components of their own cells. This “autoimmune” process involves the production of antiphospholipid, antithyroid, and/or anti-ovarian antibodies – all of which may be associated with activation of Natural Killer (NK) cells in the uterine lining. Activated NK cells (NKa) release certain cytokines (TH-I) that if present in excess, often damage the trophoblast (the embryo’s root system) resulting in immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID). This can manifest as “infertility” or as early miscarriages). In other cases (though less common), the problem is due to “alloimmune” dysfunction. Here the genetic contribution by the male partner renders the embryo “too similar” to the mother. This in turn activates NK cells leading to implantation dysfunction. These IID’s are treated using combinations of medications such as heparin, Clexane, Lovenox, corticosteroids and intralipid (IL).
B. MANAGING IID:
Unless tests for immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID) are performed correctly and conducted by a one of the few reliable reproductive immunology reference laboratory in the United States, treatment will likely be unsuccessful. . In this regard it is most important that the right tests be ordered and that these be performed by a competent laboratory. There are in my opinion only a handful of reliable Reproductive Immunology Laboratories in the world and most are in the U.S.A. Also, it is my opinion that far too often, testing is inappropriate with the many redundant and incorrect tests being requested from and conducted by suboptimal laboratories. Finally for treatment to have the best chance of being successful, it is vital that the underlying type of IID (autoimmune IID versus alloimmune) be identified correctly and that the type, dosage, concentration and timing of treatments be carefully devised and implemented. I recommend that my patients be tested by ReproSource Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratory, Boston, MA.
WHO SHOULD UNDERGO IID TESTING?
When it comes to who should be evaluated, the following conditions should in always raise a suspicion of an underlying IID, and trigger prompt testing:
•A diagnosis of endometriosis or the existence of symptoms suggestive of endometriosis (heavy/painful menstruation and pain with ovulation or with deep penetration during intercourse) I would however emphasize that a definitive diagnosis of endometriosis requires visualization of the lesions at laparoscopy or laparotomy)
•A personal or family history of autoimmune disease such as hyper/hypothyroidism (as those with elevated or depressed TSH blood levels, regardless of thyroid hormonal dysfunction), Lupus erythematosus, Rheumatoid arthritis, dermatomyositis, scleroderma etc.)
•“Unexplained” infertility
•Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)
•A history of having miscarried a conceptus that, upon testing of products of conception, was found to have a normal numerical chromosomal configuration (euploid).
•Unexplained IVF failure
• “Unexplained” intrauterine growth retardation due to placental insufficiency or late pregnancy loss of a chromosomally normal baby
What Parameters should be tested?
In my opinion, too many Reproductive Immunologists unnecessarily unload a barrage of costly IID tests on unsuspecting patients. In most cases the initial test should be for NK cell activation, and only if this is positive, is it necessary to expand the testing.
The parameters that require measurement include:
oFor Autoimmune Implantation Dysfunction: Autoimmune implantation dysfunction, most commonly presents with presumed “infertility” due to such early pregnancy losses that the woman did not even know she was pregnant in the first place. Sometimes there as an early miscarriage. Tests required are: a) blood levels of all IgA, IgG and IgM-related antiphospholipid antibodies (APA’s) directed against six or seven specific phospholipids, b) both antithyroid antibodies (antithyroid and antimicrosomal antibodies), c) a comprehensive reproductive immunophenotype (RIP) and, c) most importantly, assessment of Natural Killer (NK) cell activity (rather than concentration) by measuring by their killing, using the K-562 target cell test and/or uterine cytokine measurement. As far as the ideal environment for performing such tests, it is important to recognize that currently there are only about 5 or 6, Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratories in the U.S capable of reliably analyzing the required elements with a sufficient degree of sensitivity and specificity (in my opinion).
oFor Alloimmune implantation Dysfunction: While alloimmune Implantation usually presents with a history of unexplained (usually repeated) miscarriages or secondary infertility (where the woman conceived initially and thereupon was either unable to conceive started having repeated miscarriages it can also present as “presumed” primary infertility. Alloimmune dysfunction is diagnosed by testing the blood of both the male and female partners for matching DQ alpha genes and NK/CTL activation. It is important to note that any DQ alpha match (partial or complete) will only result in IID when there is concomitant NK/CTL activation (see elsewhere on this blog).
How should results be interpreted?
Central to making a diagnosis of an immunologic implantation dysfunction is the appropriate interpretation of natural killer cell activity (NKa) .In this regard, one of the commonest and most serious errors, is to regard the blood concentration of natural killer cells as being significant. Rather it is the activity (toxicity) of NK cells that matters as mentioned. Then there is the interpretation of reported results. The most important consideration is the percentage of target cells “killed” in the “native state”. In most cases a level of >10% killing should be regarded with suspicion and >12% overtly abnormal. In my opinion, trying to interpret the effect of adding IVIG or Intralipid to the sample in order assess whether and to what degree the use of these products would have a therapeutic benefit is seriously flawed and of little benefit. Clinically relevant NK cell deactivation can only be significantly effected in vivo and takes more than a week following infusion to occur. Thus what happens in the laboratory by adding these products to the sample prior to K-562 target cell testing is in my opinion likely irrelevant.
There exists a pervasive but blatant misconception on the part of many, that the addition of Intralipid (IL) /immunoglobulin-G IVIG) can have an immediate down-regulatory effect on NK cell activity. This has established a demand that Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratories report on NK cell activity before and following exposure to IVIG and/or IL. However, the fact is that activated “functional” NK cells (NKa) cannot be deactivated in the laboratory. Effective down-regulation of activated NK cells can only be adequately accomplished if their activated “progenitor/parental” NK cells are first down-regulated. Thereupon once these down-regulated “precursor” NK cells are exposed to progesterone, they will begin spawning normal and functional NK cells, which takes about 10-14 days. It follows that to assess for a therapeutic response to IVIG/IL therapy would require that the patient first be treated (10-14 days prior to embryo transfer) and thereupon, about 2 weeks later, be retested. While at 1st glance this might seem to be a reasonable approach, in reality it would be of little clinical benefit because even if blood were to be drawn 10 -14 days after IL/IVIG treatment it would require an additional 10 days to receive results from the laboratory, by which time it would be far too late to be of practical advantage.
Neither IVIG nor IL is capable of significantly suppressing already activated “functional NK cells”. For this to happen, the IL/IVIG would have to down-regulate progenitor (parent) NK cell” activity. Thus, it should be infused 10-14 several prior to ovulation or progesterone administration so that the down-regulated “progenitor/precursor” NK cells” can propagate a sufficient number of normally regulated “functional NK cell” to be present at the implantation site 7 days later. In addition, to be effective, IL/IVIG therapy needs to be combined with steroid (dexamethasone/prednisone/prednisolone) therapy to down-regulates (often) concomitantly activated T-cells.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements for Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 3-Treatment
•Thyroid autoantibodies and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) Why did my IVF Fail
•Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL): Why do I keep losing my PregnanciesGenetically Testing Embryos for IVF
•Staggered IVF
•Staggered IVF with PGS- Selection of “Competent” Embryos Greatly Enhances the Utility & Efficiency of IVF.
•Embryo Banking/Stockpiling: Slows the “Biological Clock” and offers a Selective Alternative to IVF-Egg Donation
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•IVF: Selecting the Best Quality Embryos to Transfer
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS in IVF: Are Some Chromosomally abnormal Embryos Capable of Resulting in Normal Babies and Being Wrongly Discarded?
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management 🙁 Case Report)
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition how it Works Administration Side-effects Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas
•Should IVF Treatment Cycles be provided uninterrupted or be Conducted in 7-12 Pre-scheduled “Batches” per Year
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
___________________________________________________________
ADDENDUM: PLEASE READ!!
INTRODUCING SHER FERTILITY SOLUTIONS (SFS)
Founded in April 2019, Sher Fertility Solutions (SFS) offers online (Skype/FaceTime) consultations to patients from > 40 different countries. All consultations are followed by a detailed written report presenting my personal recommendations for treatment of what often constitute complex Reproductive Issues.
If you wish to schedule an online consultation with me, please contact my assistant (Patti Converse) by phone (800-780-7437/702-533-2691), email (concierge@SherIVF.com) or, enroll online on then home-page of my website (www.SherIVF.com).
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SFS!
Geoff Sher
Just had a failed round of IVF. 8 eggs, 0 embryos to transfer. I have positive ANA Centromere Pattern but no autoimmune diagnosis. There are limited studies that show women with this have poor IVF outcomes. Wondering what/if an immune protocol during stimulation could help me. I’m very healthy, active and no health issues.
Also husband has hashimotos and low sperm count believed as a result. Thyroid levels have returned to normal but not his sperm count. Not sure why we both have autoimmune as affecting our fertility. What else can he do? Have you seen this before. I know it’s very uncommon in men.
Thanks for answering these questions!!
I doubt that your husband’s immune issues play a role here. As far as your status is concerned, please consider the following:
Unless tests for immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID) are performed correctly and conducted by a one of the few reliable reproductive immunology reference laboratory in the United States, treatment will likely be unsuccessful. . In this regard it is most important that the right tests be ordered and that these be performed by a competent laboratory. There are in my opinion only a handful of reliable Reproductive Immunology Laboratories in the world and most are in the U.S.A. Also, it is my opinion that far too often, testing is inappropriate with the many redundant and incorrect tests being requested from and conducted by suboptimal laboratories. Finally for treatment to have the best chance of being successful, it is vital that the underlying type of IID (autoimmune IID versus alloimmune) be identified correctly and that the type, dosage, concentration and timing of treatments be carefully devised and implemented. I recommend that my patients be tested by ReproSource Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratory, Boston, MA.
WHO SHOULD UNDERGO IID TESTING?
When it comes to who should be evaluated, the following conditions should in always raise a suspicion of an underlying IID, and trigger prompt testing:
•A diagnosis of endometriosis or the existence of symptoms suggestive of endometriosis (heavy/painful menstruation and pain with ovulation or with deep penetration during intercourse) I would however emphasize that a definitive diagnosis of endometriosis requires visualization of the lesions at laparoscopy or laparotomy)
•A personal or family history of autoimmune disease such as hyper/hypothyroidism (as those with elevated or depressed TSH blood levels, regardless of thyroid hormonal dysfunction), Lupus erythematosus, Rheumatoid arthritis, dermatomyositis, scleroderma etc.)
•“Unexplained” infertility
•Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)
•A history of having miscarried a conceptus that, upon testing of products of conception, was found to have a normal numerical chromosomal configuration (euploid).
•Unexplained IVF failure
• “Unexplained” intrauterine growth retardation due to placental insufficiency or late pregnancy loss of a chromosomally normal baby
What Parameters should be tested?
In my opinion, too many Reproductive Immunologists unnecessarily unload a barrage of costly IID tests on unsuspecting patients. In most cases the initial test should be for NK cell activation, and only if this is positive, is it necessary to expand the testing.
The parameters that require measurement include:
oFor Autoimmune Implantation Dysfunction: Autoimmune implantation dysfunction, most commonly presents with presumed “infertility” due to such early pregnancy losses that the woman did not even know she was pregnant in the first place. Sometimes there as an early miscarriage. Tests required are: a) blood levels of all IgA, IgG and IgM-related antiphospholipid antibodies (APA’s) directed against six or seven specific phospholipids, b) both antithyroid antibodies (antithyroid and antimicrosomal antibodies), c) a comprehensive reproductive immunophenotype (RIP) and, c) most importantly, assessment of Natural Killer (NK) cell activity (rather than concentration) by measuring by their killing, using the K-562 target cell test and/or uterine cytokine measurement. As far as the ideal environment for performing such tests, it is important to recognize that currently there are only about 5 or 6, Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratories in the U.S capable of reliably analyzing the required elements with a sufficient degree of sensitivity and specificity (in my opinion).
oFor Alloimmune implantation Dysfunction: While alloimmune Implantation usually presents with a history of unexplained (usually repeated) miscarriages or secondary infertility (where the woman conceived initially and thereupon was either unable to conceive started having repeated miscarriages it can also present as “presumed” primary infertility. Alloimmune dysfunction is diagnosed by testing the blood of both the male and female partners for matching DQ alpha genes and NK/CTL activation. It is important to note that any DQ alpha match (partial or complete) will only result in IID when there is concomitant NK/CTL activation (see elsewhere on this blog).
How should results be interpreted?
Central to making a diagnosis of an immunologic implantation dysfunction is the appropriate interpretation of natural killer cell activity (NKa) .In this regard, one of the commonest and most serious errors, is to regard the blood concentration of natural killer cells as being significant. Rather it is the activity (toxicity) of NK cells that matters as mentioned. Then there is the interpretation of reported results. The most important consideration is the percentage of target cells “killed” in the “native state”. In most cases a level of >10% killing should be regarded with suspicion and >12% overtly abnormal. In my opinion, trying to interpret the effect of adding IVIG or Intralipid to the sample in order assess whether and to what degree the use of these products would have a therapeutic benefit is seriously flawed and of little benefit. Clinically relevant NK cell deactivation can only be significantly effected in vivo and takes more than a week following infusion to occur. Thus what happens in the laboratory by adding these products to the sample prior to K-562 target cell testing is in my opinion likely irrelevant.
There exists a pervasive but blatant misconception on the part of many, that the addition of Intralipid (IL) /immunoglobulin-G IVIG) can have an immediate down-regulatory effect on NK cell activity. This has established a demand that Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratories report on NK cell activity before and following exposure to IVIG and/or IL. However, the fact is that activated “functional” NK cells (NKa) cannot be deactivated in the laboratory. Effective down-regulation of activated NK cells can only be adequately accomplished if their activated “progenitor/parental” NK cells are first down-regulated. Thereupon once these down-regulated “precursor” NK cells are exposed to progesterone, they will begin spawning normal and functional NK cells, which takes about 10-14 days. It follows that to assess for a therapeutic response to IVIG/IL therapy would require that the patient first be treated (10-14 days prior to embryo transfer) and thereupon, about 2 weeks later, be retested. While at 1st glance this might seem to be a reasonable approach, in reality it would be of little clinical benefit because even if blood were to be drawn 10 -14 days after IL/IVIG treatment it would require an additional 10 days to receive results from the laboratory, by which time it would be far too late to be of practical advantage.
Neither IVIG nor IL is capable of significantly suppressing already activated “functional NK cells”. For this to happen, the IL/IVIG would have to down-regulate progenitor (parent) NK cell” activity. Thus, it should be infused 10-14 several prior to ovulation or progesterone administration so that the down-regulated “progenitor/precursor” NK cells” can propagate a sufficient number of normally regulated “functional NK cell” to be present at the implantation site 7 days later. In addition, to be effective, IL/IVIG therapy needs to be combined with steroid (dexamethasone/prednisone/prednisolone) therapy to down-regulates (often) concomitantly activated T-cells.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements for Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 3-Treatment
•Thyroid autoantibodies and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) Why did my IVF Fail
•Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL): Why do I keep losing my PregnanciesGenetically Testing Embryos for IVF
•Staggered IVF
•Staggered IVF with PGS- Selection of “Competent” Embryos Greatly Enhances the Utility & Efficiency of IVF.
•Embryo Banking/Stockpiling: Slows the “Biological Clock” and offers a Selective Alternative to IVF-Egg Donation
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•IVF: Selecting the Best Quality Embryos to Transfer
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS in IVF: Are Some Chromosomally abnormal Embryos Capable of Resulting in Normal Babies and Being Wrongly Discarded?
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management 🙁 Case Report)
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition how it Works Administration Side-effects Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas
•Should IVF Treatment Cycles be provided uninterrupted or be Conducted in 7-12 Pre-scheduled “Batches” per Year
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
___________________________________________________________
ADDENDUM: PLEASE READ!!
INTRODUCING SHER FERTILITY SOLUTIONS (SFS)
Founded in April 2019, Sher Fertility Solutions (SFS) offers online (Skype/FaceTime) consultations to patients from > 40 different countries. All consultations are followed by a detailed written report presenting my personal recommendations for treatment of what often constitute complex Reproductive Issues.
If you wish to schedule an online consultation with me, please contact my assistant (Patti Converse) by phone (800-780-7437/702-533-2691), email (concierge@SherIVF.com) or, enroll online on then home-page of my website (www.SherIVF.com).
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SFS!
Geoff Sher
Hi there,
My friend flew to America to have her embryo placed by you as multiple rounds had failed in Australia. Do you have any information on your embryo placement technique?
I’m currently going through IVF, yet to have egg retrieval. I would love to know what you do differently with egg placement.
Kind regards,
Gill
Embryo transfer (ET) is undoubtedly a rate limiting factor in IVF. The IVF doctor’s expertise in performing ET is one of the most important factors determining IVF outcome. It requires the dexterity, skill, and gentle touch that can only truly come through experience. Of all the procedures in IVF, this is the most difficult to teach. It is a true “art” and there is little doubt that many women will fail to conceive following IVF from a suboptimal transfer technique.
Good quality embryos are those whose cells (blastomeres) continue to divide at a regular and predictable rate, such that within 72 hours of fertilization they contain 5-9 cells and within 5-6 days, they will have developed into expanded blastocysts with >100 cells. Such embryos are the ones that are most likely to be “competent” (i.e., able to propagate a pregnancy upon being transferred to a receptive uterus). Conversely, embryos that fail to develop into expanded blastocysts within 5-6 days of being fertilized are almost invariably chromosomally abnormal (aneuploid), “incompetent,”, and unworthy of transfer.
The addition of preimplantation genetic testing/screening (PGT/PGS) with full embryo karyotyping (which assesses all the embryo’s chromosomes), markedly improves the ability to select truly “competent” embryos for transfer. The select transfer of such PGT/PGS-normal blastocysts, vastly increases the baby rate per embryo transferred, markedly reduces the likelihood of miscarriage, and minimizes the occurrence of chromosomal birth defects such as Down’s syndrome.
Shortly before performing ET, the embryos are put together in a single laboratory dish containing growth medium. The laboratory staff informs the clinic coordinator that the embryos are ready for transfer, and the coordinator prepares the patient and informs the physician that a transfer is imminent.
Ultrasound Guided Embryo Transfer: A Must!
Embryo transfers should, in our opinion, be performed under direct abdominal ultrasound guidance to ensure proper placement in the uterine cavity. All other factors being equal, such practice, properly conducted, will significantly enhance embryo implantation and pregnancy rates.
Optimal Bladder filling to promote visualization:
We prefer to perform all embryo transfers with the patient having a full bladder. This tends to straighten the uterus from its normally flexed position, and this better allows entry of the catheter. In addition, the urine in the bladder allows ultrasound waves to travel better through the body, facilitating clearer visualization of the uterus. Lastly, a full bladder tends to induce a reflex nervous suppression of uterine contractility, reducing the chance of embryo expulsion. The patient is allowed to empty her bladder 10 minutes following the embryo transfer.
Adequate relaxation:
It is important that the woman be as relaxed as possible during the embryo transfer because many of the hormones that are released during times of stress, such as adrenalin, can cause the uterus to contract. Accordingly we offer our patients who are prone to high stress levels an oral tranquilizer (e.g. Valium) to take about a half hour prior to the embryo transfer, to reduce apprehension.
Some IVF programs believe that imagery helps the woman relax and feel positive about the process and in the process reduce the stress level. In such a program a counselor and/or clinical coordinator may help the woman focus on visual imagery for a few minutes immediately prior to embryo transfer so as to enhance her relaxation.
Acupuncture can be relaxing also, and some women find a treatment both before and after treatment helpful.
How Many Embryos should be transferred?
There is an overriding need to minimize the occurrence of multiple gestations, especially high order multiples (triplets or greater). This is because of the risk of prematurity-related complications increases proportionate to the number of babies in the uterus. Unfortunately, there are several confounding considerations in determining how many embryos to transfer at a time:
1.The stage of development that the embryos have reached by the time of the ET must also be taken into account in deciding how many to transfer. The reason for this is that blastocysts are far more likely to propagate pregnancies than are cleaved (day 2-3) embryos. So fewer blastocysts need be transferred at a time.
2.The older the woman who produced the eggs, the greater the likelihood that upon being fertilized, the resulting embryo(s) would be “incompetent.” It follows that the number of embryos that might safely be transferred per IVF procedure (without resulting in a high-order multiple) should be governed by the age of the egg provider. So, while it would be reasonable to restrict the number of “high grade” embryos transferred to a younger woman to one (1) or two (2), the same restriction would be overly stringent for a woman in her mid-40’s receiving embryos derived from the fertilization of their own eggs.
3.
4.Microscopic grade of the embryos. When a decision on how many embryos to transfer is often based upon the microscopic appearance of such embryos than their microscopic “grade” should be taken into consideration. Since it is less likely for a “lower grade” embryo to foster a healthy pregnancy than a “high grade” embryo, it follows that it would be acceptable to transfer more low-grade embryos at a time than would be considered for “high grade”.
5.
6.Embryo genetic “competency”. Since an embryo’s “competence” can largely be determined through PGT/PGS, it is highly recommended in the case of PGT/PGS-normal blastocysts to conduct single embryo transfers as a rule, irrespective of maternal age. Each PGT/PGS normal embryo confers approximately a 50-55% chance of fostering a live-birth. The literature also strongly suggest that transferring more than one PGT/PGS normal embryo seems merely to confer a higher risk of twins without appreciably affecting the overall overall pregnancy rate.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has taken all these factors into account and has created guidelines for fertility specialists to refer to when determining the number of embryos to transfer.
The Embryo Transfer Process:
When the woman is in the proper position, and her bladder is adequately filled, the physician first inserts a speculum into the vagina to expose and clean the outer cervix with a sterile saline solution to remove any mucus or other secretions. An abdominal ultrasound transducer is placed suprapubically on the lower abdomen to allow clear visualization of the uterus. An echogenic embryo transfer cannula (with an empty internal catheter through the entire length of the cervical canal until the sonically activated tip reaches the junction of the cervical canal and uterine cavity. The laboratory is then notified to load a catheter with the embryo (s) to be transferred and deliver them to the treating doctor in the procedure room. At this point the empty catheter is removed from the positioned cannula and the embryo-loaded catheter is passed via the perfectly positioned cannula, to within approximately one (1) centimeter of the top of the uterine cavity, whereupon the embryologist is directed to slowly inject the embryo(s) into the uterus. The passage of the embryos into the uterine cavity can be tracked by ultrasound visualization. A period of 20– 30 seconds is allowed to elapse, whereupon the catheter and cannula are simultaneously withdrawn slowly. Thereupon, the catheter is immediately returned to the laboratory where it is examined under the microscope to make sure that all the embryos have been released. Any residual embryos would be promptly re-transferred using the same technique.
Frozen Embryo Transfers:
Available evidence suggests that FET (of previously cryopreserved embryos) is at least as successful as is the transfer of “fresh” embryos and might even have the edge. The probably explanation is certainly unlikely to have anything to do with the freezing process itself. The reason likely has to do with being able to better able to prepare the uterus optimally for embryo implantation by using targeted hormone replacement therapy that when a “fresh” transfer is performed immediately following ovarian stimulation with fertility drugs.
We prefer for our patients to initiate FET cycles with oral contraceptive (OC) starting within 5-6 days of the start of menses to the recipient. This is later overlapped with a GnRH agonist such as Lupron daily for 5-6 days. The OC is then withdrawn, but the daily Lupron injections are continued until the onset of menstruation. Next, the Lupron dosage is reduced and intramuscular (IM) estradiol valuate (Delestrogen) is administered every 3 days. The objective of the estradiol is to achieve and sustain an optimal plasma E2 concentration of 500- 1000 pg/ml and an 8mm+ endometrial lining as assessed by ultrasound examination. Intramuscular and/or intravaginal progesterone is administered daily starting about 6 days prior to the FET and continued along with twice weekly IM Delestrogen until the 11th week of pregnancy or until it has been confirmed that the patient is not pregnant. Daily oral dexamethasone commences with the Lupron start and continues until a negative pregnancy test or until the completion of the 8th week of pregnancy. Then it is tapered down and discontinued. The recipient also receives prophylactic oral antibiotics starting with the initiation of progesterone therapy, until the day after ET. Usually we would thaw vitrified blastocysts with the objective of having at least one for transfer. Commencing on the day following the ET, the patient inserts a vaginal progesterone suppository daily and this is continued until the completion of the 11th week of pregnancy or until a negative pregnancy test. An alternative regimen for women who cannot tolerate intramuscular Progesterone (PIO), is to supplant this with daily vaginal Crinone 8% or Endometrin inserts. Blood pregnancy tests are performed 8 and 10 days after the embryo transfer.
Immediately prior to being discharged following the embryo transfer procedure, an exit interview is conducted whereby the patient is given post- transfer instructions and a medication calendar.
The patient’s partner or companion is certainly welcome to be present for the whole process.
Hi Dr. Sher,
I came across your pod cast, I am 30 y/o I have been pregnant twice in the last 6 months, both ending in silent miscarriages. First one at 10 weeks second one at 8 weeks. I currently am 4 weeks post second D&C. I guess I’m just wondering, where do I go from here? I feel that with my current Obgyn she doesn’t want to “deal” with my case. She sent me for blood work but that’s about it. I feel lost. I’m hoping just to get any piece of light and information from you.
Thank you so so much
Kelly
When it comes to reproduction, humans are the poorest performers of all mammals. In fact we are so inefficient that up to 75% of fertilized eggs do not produce live births, and up to 30% of pregnancies end up being lost within 10 weeks of conception (in the first trimester). RPL is defined as two (2) or more failed pregnancies. Less than 5% of women will experience two (2) consecutive miscarriages, and only 1% experience three or more.
Pregnancy loss can be classified by the stage of pregnancy when the loss occurs:
•Early pregnancy loss (first trimester)
•Late pregnancy loss (after the first trimester)
•Occult “hidden” and not clinically recognized, (chemical) pregnancy loss (occurs prior to ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy)
•Early pregnancy losses usually occur sporadically (are not repetitive).
In more than 70% of cases the loss is due to embryo aneuploidy (where there are more or less than the normal quota of 46 chromosomes). Conversely, repeated losses (RPL), with isolated exceptions where the cause is structural (e.g., unbalanced translocations), are seldom attributable to numerical chromosomal abnormalities (aneuploidy). In fact, the vast majority of cases of RPL are attributable to non-chromosomal causes such as anatomical uterine abnormalities or Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID).
Since most sporadic early pregnancy losses are induced by chromosomal factors and thus are non-repetitive, having had a single miscarriage the likelihood of a second one occurring is no greater than average. However, once having had two losses the chance of a third one occurring is double (35-40%) and after having had three losses the chance of a fourth miscarriage increases to about 60%. The reason for this is that the more miscarriages a woman has, the greater is the likelihood of this being due to a non-chromosomal (repetitive) cause such as IID. It follows that if numerical chromosomal analysis (karyotyping) of embryonic/fetal products derived from a miscarriage tests karyotypically normal, then by a process of elimination, there would be a strong likelihood of a miscarriage repeating in subsequent pregnancies and one would not have to wait for the disaster to recur before taking action. This is precisely why we strongly advocate that all miscarriage specimens be karyotyped.
There is however one caveat to be taken into consideration. That is that the laboratory performing the karyotyping might unwittingly be testing the mother’s cells rather than that of the conceptus. That is why it is not possible to confidently exclude aneuploidy in cases where karyotyping of products suggests a “chromosomally normal” (euploid) female.
Late pregnancy losses (occurring after completion of the 1st trimester/12th week) occur far less frequently (1%) than early pregnancy losses. They are most commonly due to anatomical abnormalities of the uterus and/or cervix. Weakness of the neck of the cervix rendering it able to act as an effective valve that retains the pregnancy (i.e., cervical incompetence) is in fact one of the commonest causes of late pregnancy loss. So also are developmental (congenital) abnormalities of the uterus (e.g., a uterine septum) and uterine fibroid tumors. In some cases intrauterine growth retardation, premature separation of the placenta (placental abruption), premature rupture of the membranes and premature labor can also causes of late pregnancy loss.
Much progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms involved in RPL. There are two broad categories:
1.Problems involving the uterine environment in which a normal embryo is prohibited from properly implanting and developing. Possible causes include:
•Inadequate thickening of the uterine lining
•Irregularity in the contour of the uterine cavity (polyps, fibroid tumors in the uterine wall, intra-uterine scarring and adenomyosis)
•Hormonal imbalances (progesterone deficiency or luteal phase defects). This most commonly results in occult RPL.
•Deficient blood flow to the uterine lining (thin uterine lining).
•Immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID). A major cause of RPL. Plays a role in 75% of cases where chromosomally normal preimplantation embryos fail to implant.
•Interference of blood supply to the developing conceptus can occur due to a hereditary clotting disorder known as Thrombophilia.
2.Genetic and/or structural chromosomal abnormality of the embryo.Genetic abnormalities are rare causes of RPL. Structural chromosomal abnormalities are slightly more common but are also occur infrequently (1%). These are referred to as unbalanced translocation and they result from part of one chromosome detaching and then fusing with another chromosome. Additionally, a number of studies suggest the existence of paternal (sperm derived) effect on human embryo quality and pregnancy outcome that are not reflected as a chromosomal abnormality. Damaged sperm DNA can have a negative impact on fetal development and present clinically as occult or early clinical miscarriage. The Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA) which measures the same endpoints are newer and possibly improved methods for evaluating.
IMMUNOLOGIC IMPLANTATION DYSFUNCTION
Autoimmune IID: Here an immunologic reaction is produced by the individual to his/her body’s own cellular components. The most common antibodies that form in such situations are APA and antithyroid antibodies (ATA).
But it is only when specialized immune cells in the uterine lining, known as cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTL) and natural killer (NK) cells, become activated and start to release an excessive/disproportionate amount of TH-1 cytokines that attack the root system of the embryo, that implantation potential is jeopardized. Diagnosis of such activation requires highly specialized blood test for cytokine activity that can only be performed by a handful of reproductive immunology reference laboratories in the United States.
Alloimmune IID, i.e., where antibodies are formed against antigens derived from another member of the same species, is believed to be a relatively common immunologic cause of recurrent pregnancy loss.
Autoimmune IID is often genetically transmitted. Thus it should not be surprising to learn that it is more likely to exist in women who have a family (or personal) history of primary autoimmune diseases such as lupus erythematosus (LE), scleroderma or autoimmune hypothyroidism (Hashimoto’s disease), autoimmune hyperthyroidism (Grave’s disease), rheumatoid arthritis, etc. Reactionary (secondary) autoimmunity can occur in conjunction with any medical condition associated with widespread tissue damage. One such gynecologic condition is endometriosis. Since autoimmune IID is usually associated with activated NK and T-cells from the outset, it usually results in such very early destruction of the embryo’s root system that the patient does not even recognize that she is pregnant. Accordingly the condition usually presents as “unexplained infertility” or “unexplained IVF failure” rather than as a miscarriage.
Alloimmune IID, on the other hand, usually starts off presenting as unexplained miscarriages (often manifesting as RPL). Over time as NK/T cell activation builds and eventually becomes permanently established the patient often goes from RPL to “infertility” due to failed implantation. RPL is more commonly the consequence of alloimmune rather than autoimmune implantation dysfunction.
However, regardless, of whether miscarriage is due to autoimmune or alloimmune implantation dysfunction the final blow to the pregnancy is the result of activated NK cells and CTL in the uterine lining that damage the developing embryo’s “root system” (trophoblast) so that it can no longer sustain the growing conceptus. This having been said, it is important to note that autoimmune IID is readily amenable to reversal through timely, appropriately administered, selective immunotherapy, and alloimmune IID is not. It is much more difficult to treat successfully, even with the use of immunotherapy. In fact, in some cases the only solution will be to revert to selective immunotherapy plus using donor sperm (provided there is no “match” between the donor’s DQa profile and that of the female recipient) or alternatively to resort to gestational surrogacy.
DIAGNOSING THE CAUSE OF RPL
In the past, women who miscarried were not evaluated thoroughly until they had lost several pregnancies in a row. This was because sporadic miscarriages are most commonly the result of embryo numerical chromosomal irregularities (aneuploidy) and thus not treatable. However, a consecutive series of miscarriages points to a repetitive cause that is non-chromosomal and is potentially remediable. Since RPL is most commonly due to a uterine pathology or immunologic causes that are potentially treatable, it follows that early chromosomal evaluation of products of conception could point to a potentially treatable situation. Thus I strongly recommend that such testing be done in most cases of miscarriage. Doing so will avoid a great deal of unnecessary heartache for many patients.
Establishing the correct diagnosis is the first step toward determining effective treatment for couples with RPL. It results from a problem within the pregnancy itself or within the uterine environment where the pregnancy implants and grows. Diagnostic tests useful in identifying individuals at greater risk for a problem within the pregnancy itself include:
Karyotyping (chromosome analysis) both prospective parents
•Assessment of the karyotype of products of conception derived from previous miscarriage specimens
•Ultrasound examination of the uterine cavity after sterile water is injected or sonohysterogram, fluid ultrasound, etc.)
•Hysterosalpingogram (dye X-ray test)
•Hysteroscopic evaluation of the uterine cavity
•Full hormonal evaluation (estrogen, progesterone, adrenal steroid hormones, thyroid hormones, FSH/LH, etc.)
•Immunologic testing to include:
a)Antiphospholipid antibody (APA) panel
b)Antinuclear antibody (ANA) panel
c)Antithyroid antibody panel (i.e., antithyroglobulin and antimicrosomal antibodies)
d)Reproductive immunophenotype
e)Natural killer cell activity (NKa) assay (i.e., K562 target cell test)
f)Alloimmune testing of both the male and female partners
TREATMENT OF RPL
Treatment for Anatomic Abnormalities of the Uterus: This involves restoration through removal of local lesions such as fibroids, scar tissue, and endometrial polyps or timely insertion of a cervical cerclage (a stitch placed around the neck of the weakened cervix) or the excision of a uterine septum when indicated.
Treatment of Thin Uterine Lining: A thin uterine lining has been shown to correlate with compromised pregnancy outcome. Often this will be associated with reduced blood flow to the endometrium. Such decreased blood flow to the uterus can be improved through treatment with sildenafil and possibly aspirin.
Sildenafil (Viagra) Therapy. Viagra has been used successfully to increase uterine blood flow. However, to be effective it must be administered starting as soon as the period stops up until the day of ovulation and it must be administered vaginally (not orally). Viagra in the form of vaginal suppositories given in the dosage of 25 mg four times a day has been shown to increase uterine blood flow as well as thickness of the uterine lining. To date, we have seen significant improvement of the thickness of the uterine lining in about 70% of women treated. Successful pregnancy resulted in 42% of women who responded to the Viagra. It should be remembered that most of these women had previously experienced repeated IVF failures.
Use of Aspirin: This is an anti-prostaglandin that improves blood flow to the endometrium. It is administered at a dosage of 81 mg orally, daily from the beginning of the cycle until ovulation.
Treating Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction with Selective Immunotherapy: Modalities such as IL/IVIg, heparinoids (Lovenox/Clexane), and corticosteroids (dexamethasone, prednisone, prednisolone) can be used in select cases depending on autoimmune or alloimmune dysfunction.
The Use of IVF in the Treatment of RPL
In the following circumstances, IVF is the preferred option:
1.When in addition to a history of RPL, another standard indication for IVF (e.g., tubal factor, endometriosis, and male factor infertility) is superimposed.
2.In cases where selective immunotherapy is needed to treat an immunologic implantation dysfunction.
The reason for IVF being a preferred approach in such cases is that in order to be effective, the immunotherapy needs to be initiated well before spontaneous or induced ovulation. Given the fact that the anticipated birthrate per cycle of COS with or without IUI is at best about 15%, it follows that short of IVF, to have even a reasonable chance of a live birth, most women with immunologic causes of RPL would need to undergo immunotherapy repeatedly, over consecutive cycles. Conversely, with IVF, the chance of a successful outcome in a single cycle of treatment is several times greater and, because of the attenuated and concentrated time period required for treatment, IVF is far safer and thus represents a more practicable alternative
Since embryo aneuploidy is a common cause of miscarriage, the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), with tests such as CGH, can provide a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic advantage in cases of RPL. PGD requires IVF to provide access to embryos for testing.
There are a few cases of intractable alloimmune dysfunction due to absolute DQ alpha matching where Gestational Surrogacy or use of donor sperm could represent the only viable recourse, other than abandoning treatment altogether and/or resorting to adoption. Other non-immunologic factors such as an intractably thin uterine lining or severe uterine pathology might also warrant that last resort consideration be given to gestational surrogacy.
The good news is that if a couple with RPL is open to all of the diagnostic and treatment options referred to above, a live birthrate of 70%–80% is ultimately achievable.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.SherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements For Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Comparing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion Protocol.(A/ACP) With the “Conventional” Antagonist Approach
•Ovarian Stimulation in Women Who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): Introducing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion protocol
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•Human Growth Hormone Administration in IVF: Does it Enhances Egg/Embryo Quality and Outcome?
•The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
•Blastocyst Embryo Transfers Should be the Standard of Care in IVF
•IVF: How Many Attempts should be considered before Stopping?
•“Unexplained” Infertility: Often a matter of the Diagnosis Being Overlooked!
•IVF Failure and Implantation Dysfunction:
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 3-Treatment
•Thyroid autoantibodies and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management:(Case Report
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition How it Works Administration Side-effects Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Endometrial Thickness, Uterine Pathology and Immunologic Factors
•Vaginally Administered Viagra is Often a Highly Effective Treatment to Help Thicken a Thin Uterine Lining
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
•How Many Embryos should be transferred: A Critical Decision in IVF.
•The Role of Nutritional Supplements in Preparing for IVF
______________________________________________________
ADDENDUM: PLEASE READ!!
INTRODUCING SHER FERTILITY SOLUTIONS (SFS)
Founded in April 2019, Sher Fertility Solutions (SFS) offers online (Skype/FaceTime) consultations to patients from > 40 different countries. All consultations are followed by a detailed written report presenting my personal recommendations for treatment of what often constitute complex Reproductive Issues.
If you wish to schedule an online consultation with me, please contact my assistant (Patti Converse) by phone (800-780-7437/702-533-2691), email (concierge@SherIVF.com) or, enroll online on then home-page of my website (www.SherIVF.com).
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SFS!
Geoff Sher
I have 2 PGT tested embryos that came back with the following results:
Embryo 1: Came back as abnormal -17
Embryo 2: Came back as abnormal +11 , +19
Would either of these be ok to transfer in hopes that the embryo may autocorrect? We were always told in past to discard all abnormal but I came across a blog of yours that questioned that some abnormals may be able to be used and could autocorrect, miscarry or just not implant.
Would greatly appreciate your response.
I would not discard the monosomy 17 embryo. It could still be a “mosaic. The +11/+19…less so!
Human embryo development occurs through a process that encompasses reprogramming, sequential cleavage divisions and mitotic chromosome segregation and embryonic genome activation. Chromosomal abnormalities may arise during germ cell and/or preimplantation embryo development and represents a major cause of early pregnancy loss. About a decade ago, I and my associate, Levent Keskintepe PhD were the first to introduce full embryo karyotyping (identification of all 46 chromosomes) through preimplantation genetic sampling (PGS) as a method by which to selectively transfer only euploid embryos (i.e. those that have a full component of chromosomes) to the uterus. We subsequently reported on a 2-3-fold improvement in implantation and birth rates as well as a significant reduction in early pregnancy loss, following IVF. Since then PGS has grown dramatically in popularity such that it is now widely used throughout the world.
Many IVF programs that offer PGS services, require that all participating patients consent to all their aneuploid embryos (i.e. those with an irregular quota of chromosomes) be disposed of. However, growing evidence suggests that following embryo transfer, some aneuploid embryos will in the process of ongoing development, convert to the euploid state (i.e. “autocorrect”) and then go on to develop into chromosomally normal offspring. In fact, I am personally aware of several such cases having occurred in my own practice. So clearly, summarily discarding all aneuploid embryos as a matter of routine we are sometimes destroying some embryos that might otherwise have “autocorrected” and gone on to develop into normal offspring. Thus by discarding aneuploid embryos the possibility exists that we could be denying some women the opportunity of having a baby. This creates a major ethical and moral dilemma for those of us that provide the option of PGS to our patients. On the one hand, we strive “to avoid knowingly doing harm” (the Hippocratic Oath) and as such would prefer to avoid or minimize the risk of miscarriage and/or chromosomal birth defects and on the other hand we would not wish to deny patients with aneuploid embryos, the opportunity to have a baby.
The basis for such embryo “autocorrection” lies in the fact that some embryos found through PGS-karyotyping to harbor one or more aneuploid cells (blastomeres) will often also harbor chromosomally normal (euploid) cells (blastomeres). The coexistence of both aneuploid and euploid cells coexisting in the same embryo is referred to as “mosaicism.”
It is against this background, that an ever-increasing number of IVF practitioners, rather than summarily discard PGS-identified aneuploid embryos are now choosing to cryobanking (freeze-store) certain of them, to leave open the possibility of ultimately transferring them to the uterus. In order to best understand the complexity of the factors involved in such decision making, it is essential to understand the causes of embryo aneuploidy of which there are two varieties:
1.Meiotic aneuploidy” results from aberrations in chromosomal numerical configuration that originate in either the egg (most commonly) and/or in sperm, during preconceptual maturational division (meiosis). Since meiosis occurs in the pre-fertilized egg or in and sperm, it follows that when aneuploidy occurs due to defective meiosis, all subsequent cells in the developing embryo/blastocyst/conceptus inevitably will be aneuploid, precluding subsequent “autocorrection”. Meiotic aneuploidy will thus invariably be perpetuated in all the cells of the embryo as they replicate. It is a permanent phenomenon and is irreversible. All embryos so affected are thus fatally damaged. Most will fail to implant and those that do implant will either be lost in early pregnancy or develop into chromosomally defective offspring (e.g. Down syndrome, Edward syndrome, Turner syndrome).
2.Mitotic aneuploidy (“Mosaicism”) occurs when following fertilization and subsequent cell replication (cleavage), some cells (blastomeres) of a meiotically normal (euploid) early embryo mutate and become aneuploid. This is referred to as “mosaicism”. Thereupon, with continued subsequent cell replication (mitosis) the chromosomal make-up (karyotype) of the embryo might either comprise of predominantly aneuploid cells or euploid cells. The subsequent viability or competency of the conceptus will thereupon depend on whether euploid or aneuploid cells predominate. If in such mosaic embryos aneuploid cells predominate, the embryo will be “incompetent”). If (as is frequently the case) euploid cells prevail, the mosaic embryo will likely be “competent” and capable of propagating a normal conceptus.
Since some mitotically aneuploid (“mosaic”) embryos can, and indeed do “autocorrect’ while meiotically aneuploid embryos cannot, it follows that an ability to reliably differentiate between these two varieties of aneuploidy would potentially be of considerable clinical value. The recent introduction of a variety of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) known as next generation gene sequencing (NGS) has vastly improved the ability to reliably and accurately karyotype embryos and thus to diagnose embryo “mosaicism”.
Most complex aneuploidies are meiotic in origin and will thus almost invariably fail to propagate viable pregnancies. The ability of mosaic embryos to autocorrect is influenced by stage of embryo development in which the diagnosis is made, which chromosomes are affected, whether the aneuploidy involves a single chromosome (simple) or involves 3 or more chromosomes (complex), and the percentage of cells that are aneuploid. Many embryos diagnosed as being mosaic prior to their development into blastocysts (in the cleaved state), subsequently undergo autocorrection to the euploid state (normal numerical chromosomal configuration) as they develop to blastocysts in the Petri dish. This is one reason why “mosaicism” is more commonly detected in early embryos than in blastocysts. Embryos with segmental mosaic aneuploidies, i.e. the addition (duplication) or subtraction (deletion), are also more likely to autocorrect. Finally, the lower the percentage of mitotically aneuploid (mosaic) cells in the blastocyst the greater the propensity for autocorrection and propagation of chromosomally normal (euploid) offspring. A blastocyst with <30% mosaicism could yield a 30% likelihood of a healthy baby rate with 10-15% miscarriage rate, while with >50% mosaicism the baby rate is roughly halved and the miscarriage rate double.
As stated, the transfer of embryos with autosomal meiotic trisomy, will invariably result in failed implantation, early miscarriage or the birth of a defective child. Those with autosomal mitotic (“mosaic”) trisomies, while having the ability to autocorrect in-utero and result in the birth of a healthy baby can, depending on the percentage of mosaic (mitotically aneuploid) cells present, the number of aneuploid chromosomes and the type of mosaicism (single or segmental) either autocorrect and propagate a normal baby, result in failed implantation, miscarry or cause a birth defect (especially with trisomies 13, 18 or 21). This is why when it comes to giving consideration to transferring trisomic embryos, suspected of being “mosaic”, I advise patients to undergo prenatal genetic testing once pregnant and to be willing to undergo termination of pregnancy in the event of the baby being affected. Conversely, when it comes to meiotic autosomal monosomy, there is almost no chance of a viable pregnancy. in most cases implantation will fail to occur and if it does, the pregnancy will with rare exceptions, miscarry. “Mosaic” (mitotically aneuploid) autosomally monosomic embryos where a chromosome is missing), can and often will “autocorrect” in-utero and propagate a viable pregnancy. It is for this reason that I readily recommend the transfer of such embryos, while still (for safety sake) advising prenatal genetic testing in the event that a pregnancy results.
What should be done with “mosaic embryos? While the ability to identify “mosaicism” through karyotyping of embryos has vastly improved, itv is far from being absolutely reliable. In fact, I personally have witnessed a number of healthy/normal babies born after the transfer of aneuploid embryos, previously reported on as revealing no evidence of “mosaicism”. However, the question arises as to which “mosaic” embryos are capable of autocorrecting in-utero and propagating viable pregnancies. Research suggests that that embryos with autosomal monosomy very rarely will propagate viable pregnancies. Thus, it is in my opinion virtually risk-free to transfer embryos with monosomies involving up to two (2) autosomes. The same applies to the transfer of trisomic embryos where up to 2 autosomes are involved. Only here, there is a risk of birth defects (e.g. trisomy 21/18, etc.) and any resulting pregnancies need to be carefully assessed and if needed/desired, be ended. Regardless, it is essential to make full disclosure to the patient (s), and to ensure the completion of a detailed informed consent agreement which would include a commitment by the patient (s) to undergo prenatal genetic testing (amniocentesis/CVS) aimed at excluding a chromosomal defect in the developing baby and/or a willingness to terminate the pregnancy should a serious birth defect be diagnosed. Blastocysts with aneuploidies involving > 2 autosomes are complex abnormal and should in my opinion, be discarded.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.SherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•A Fresh Look at the Indications for IVF
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements For Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in Older women and Women who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): A Rational Basis for Selecting a Stimulation Protocol
•Optimizing Response to Ovarian Stimulation in Women with Compromised Ovarian Response to Ovarian Stimulation: A Personal Approach.
•Hereditary Clotting Defects (Thrombophilia)
•Blastocyst Embryo Transfers done 5-6 Days Following Fertilization are Fast Replacing Earlier day 2-3 Transfers of Cleaved Embryos.
•Embryo Transfer Procedure: The “Holy Grail in IVF.
•Timing of ET: Transferring Blastocysts on Day 5-6 Post-Fertilization, Rather Than on Day 2-3 as Cleaved Embryos.
•IVF: Approach to Selecting the Best Embryos for Transfer to the Uterus.
•Fresh versus Frozen Embryo Transfers (FET) Enhance IVF Outcome
•Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET): A Rational Approach to Hormonal Preparation and How new Methodology is Impacting IVF.
•Staggered IVF
•Staggered IVF with PGS- Selection of “Competent” Embryos Greatly Enhances the Utility & Efficiency of IVF.
•Staggered IVF: An Excellent Option When. Advancing Age and Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Reduces IVF Success Rate
•Embryo Banking/Stockpiling: Slows the “Biological Clock” and offers a Selective Alternative to IVF-Egg Donation
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•IVF: Selecting the Best Quality Embryos to Transfer
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•IVF outcome: How Does Advancing Age and Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Affect Egg/Embryo “Competency” and How Should the Problem be addressed.
___________________________________________________
ADDENDUM: PLEASE READ!!
INTRODUCING SHER FERTILITY SOLUTIONS (SFS)
Founded in April 2019, Sher Fertility Solutions (SFS) offers online (Skype/FaceTime) consultations to patients from > 40 different countries. All consultations are followed by a detailed written report presenting my personal recommendations for treatment of what often constitute complex Reproductive Issues.
If you wish to schedule an online consultation with me, please contact my assistant (Patti Converse) by phone (800-780-7437/702-533-2691), email (concierge@SherIVF.com) or, enroll online on then home-page of my website (www.SherIVF.com).
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SFS!
Geoff Sher
I would use both!
Human embryo development occurs through a process that encompasses reprogramming, sequential cleavage divisions and mitotic chromosome segregation and embryonic genome activation. Chromosomal abnormalities may arise during germ cell and/or preimplantation embryo development and represents a major cause of early pregnancy loss. About a decade ago, I and my associate, Levent Keskintepe PhD were the first to introduce full embryo karyotyping (identification of all 46 chromosomes) through preimplantation genetic sampling (PGS) as a method by which to selectively transfer only euploid embryos (i.e. those that have a full component of chromosomes) to the uterus. We subsequently reported on a 2-3-fold improvement in implantation and birth rates as well as a significant reduction in early pregnancy loss, following IVF. Since then PGS has grown dramatically in popularity such that it is now widely used throughout the world.
Many IVF programs that offer PGS services, require that all participating patients consent to all their aneuploid embryos (i.e. those with an irregular quota of chromosomes) be disposed of. However, growing evidence suggests that following embryo transfer, some aneuploid embryos will in the process of ongoing development, convert to the euploid state (i.e. “autocorrect”) and then go on to develop into chromosomally normal offspring. In fact, I am personally aware of several such cases having occurred in my own practice. So clearly, summarily discarding all aneuploid embryos as a matter of routine we are sometimes destroying some embryos that might otherwise have “autocorrected” and gone on to develop into normal offspring. Thus by discarding aneuploid embryos the possibility exists that we could be denying some women the opportunity of having a baby. This creates a major ethical and moral dilemma for those of us that provide the option of PGS to our patients. On the one hand, we strive “to avoid knowingly doing harm” (the Hippocratic Oath) and as such would prefer to avoid or minimize the risk of miscarriage and/or chromosomal birth defects and on the other hand we would not wish to deny patients with aneuploid embryos, the opportunity to have a baby.
The basis for such embryo “autocorrection” lies in the fact that some embryos found through PGS-karyotyping to harbor one or more aneuploid cells (blastomeres) will often also harbor chromosomally normal (euploid) cells (blastomeres). The coexistence of both aneuploid and euploid cells coexisting in the same embryo is referred to as “mosaicism.”
It is against this background, that an ever-increasing number of IVF practitioners, rather than summarily discard PGS-identified aneuploid embryos are now choosing to cryobanking (freeze-store) certain of them, to leave open the possibility of ultimately transferring them to the uterus. In order to best understand the complexity of the factors involved in such decision making, it is essential to understand the causes of embryo aneuploidy of which there are two varieties:
1.Meiotic aneuploidy” results from aberrations in chromosomal numerical configuration that originate in either the egg (most commonly) and/or in sperm, during preconceptual maturational division (meiosis). Since meiosis occurs in the pre-fertilized egg or in and sperm, it follows that when aneuploidy occurs due to defective meiosis, all subsequent cells in the developing embryo/blastocyst/conceptus inevitably will be aneuploid, precluding subsequent “autocorrection”. Meiotic aneuploidy will thus invariably be perpetuated in all the cells of the embryo as they replicate. It is a permanent phenomenon and is irreversible. All embryos so affected are thus fatally damaged. Most will fail to implant and those that do implant will either be lost in early pregnancy or develop into chromosomally defective offspring (e.g. Down syndrome, Edward syndrome, Turner syndrome).
2.Mitotic aneuploidy (“Mosaicism”) occurs when following fertilization and subsequent cell replication (cleavage), some cells (blastomeres) of a meiotically normal (euploid) early embryo mutate and become aneuploid. This is referred to as “mosaicism”. Thereupon, with continued subsequent cell replication (mitosis) the chromosomal make-up (karyotype) of the embryo might either comprise of predominantly aneuploid cells or euploid cells. The subsequent viability or competency of the conceptus will thereupon depend on whether euploid or aneuploid cells predominate. If in such mosaic embryos aneuploid cells predominate, the embryo will be “incompetent”). If (as is frequently the case) euploid cells prevail, the mosaic embryo will likely be “competent” and capable of propagating a normal conceptus.
Since some mitotically aneuploid (“mosaic”) embryos can, and indeed do “autocorrect’ while meiotically aneuploid embryos cannot, it follows that an ability to reliably differentiate between these two varieties of aneuploidy would potentially be of considerable clinical value. The recent introduction of a variety of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) known as next generation gene sequencing (NGS) has vastly improved the ability to reliably and accurately karyotype embryos and thus to diagnose embryo “mosaicism”.
Most complex aneuploidies are meiotic in origin and will thus almost invariably fail to propagate viable pregnancies. The ability of mosaic embryos to autocorrect is influenced by stage of embryo development in which the diagnosis is made, which chromosomes are affected, whether the aneuploidy involves a single chromosome (simple) or involves 3 or more chromosomes (complex), and the percentage of cells that are aneuploid. Many embryos diagnosed as being mosaic prior to their development into blastocysts (in the cleaved state), subsequently undergo autocorrection to the euploid state (normal numerical chromosomal configuration) as they develop to blastocysts in the Petri dish. This is one reason why “mosaicism” is more commonly detected in early embryos than in blastocysts. Embryos with segmental mosaic aneuploidies, i.e. the addition (duplication) or subtraction (deletion), are also more likely to autocorrect. Finally, the lower the percentage of mitotically aneuploid (mosaic) cells in the blastocyst the greater the propensity for autocorrection and propagation of chromosomally normal (euploid) offspring. A blastocyst with <30% mosaicism could yield a 30% likelihood of a healthy baby rate with 10-15% miscarriage rate, while with >50% mosaicism the baby rate is roughly halved and the miscarriage rate double.
As stated, the transfer of embryos with autosomal meiotic trisomy, will invariably result in failed implantation, early miscarriage or the birth of a defective child. Those with autosomal mitotic (“mosaic”) trisomies, while having the ability to autocorrect in-utero and result in the birth of a healthy baby can, depending on the percentage of mosaic (mitotically aneuploid) cells present, the number of aneuploid chromosomes and the type of mosaicism (single or segmental) either autocorrect and propagate a normal baby, result in failed implantation, miscarry or cause a birth defect (especially with trisomies 13, 18 or 21). This is why when it comes to giving consideration to transferring trisomic embryos, suspected of being “mosaic”, I advise patients to undergo prenatal genetic testing once pregnant and to be willing to undergo termination of pregnancy in the event of the baby being affected. Conversely, when it comes to meiotic autosomal monosomy, there is almost no chance of a viable pregnancy. in most cases implantation will fail to occur and if it does, the pregnancy will with rare exceptions, miscarry. “Mosaic” (mitotically aneuploid) autosomally monosomic embryos where a chromosome is missing), can and often will “autocorrect” in-utero and propagate a viable pregnancy. It is for this reason that I readily recommend the transfer of such embryos, while still (for safety sake) advising prenatal genetic testing in the event that a pregnancy results.
What should be done with “mosaic embryos? While the ability to identify “mosaicism” through karyotyping of embryos has vastly improved, itv is far from being absolutely reliable. In fact, I personally have witnessed a number of healthy/normal babies born after the transfer of aneuploid embryos, previously reported on as revealing no evidence of “mosaicism”. However, the question arises as to which “mosaic” embryos are capable of autocorrecting in-utero and propagating viable pregnancies. Research suggests that that embryos with autosomal monosomy very rarely will propagate viable pregnancies. Thus, it is in my opinion virtually risk-free to transfer embryos with monosomies involving up to two (2) autosomes. The same applies to the transfer of trisomic embryos where up to 2 autosomes are involved. Only here, there is a risk of birth defects (e.g. trisomy 21/18, etc.) and any resulting pregnancies need to be carefully assessed and if needed/desired, be ended. Regardless, it is essential to make full disclosure to the patient (s), and to ensure the completion of a detailed informed consent agreement which would include a commitment by the patient (s) to undergo prenatal genetic testing (amniocentesis/CVS) aimed at excluding a chromosomal defect in the developing baby and/or a willingness to terminate the pregnancy should a serious birth defect be diagnosed. Blastocysts with aneuploidies involving > 2 autosomes are complex abnormal and should in my opinion, be discarded.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.SherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•A Fresh Look at the Indications for IVF
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements For Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in Older women and Women who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): A Rational Basis for Selecting a Stimulation Protocol
•Optimizing Response to Ovarian Stimulation in Women with Compromised Ovarian Response to Ovarian Stimulation: A Personal Approach.
•Hereditary Clotting Defects (Thrombophilia)
•Blastocyst Embryo Transfers done 5-6 Days Following Fertilization are Fast Replacing Earlier day 2-3 Transfers of Cleaved Embryos.
•Embryo Transfer Procedure: The “Holy Grail in IVF.
•Timing of ET: Transferring Blastocysts on Day 5-6 Post-Fertilization, Rather Than on Day 2-3 as Cleaved Embryos.
•IVF: Approach to Selecting the Best Embryos for Transfer to the Uterus.
•Fresh versus Frozen Embryo Transfers (FET) Enhance IVF Outcome
•Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET): A Rational Approach to Hormonal Preparation and How new Methodology is Impacting IVF.
•Staggered IVF
•Staggered IVF with PGS- Selection of “Competent” Embryos Greatly Enhances the Utility & Efficiency of IVF.
•Staggered IVF: An Excellent Option When. Advancing Age and Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Reduces IVF Success Rate
•Embryo Banking/Stockpiling: Slows the “Biological Clock” and offers a Selective Alternative to IVF-Egg Donation
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•IVF: Selecting the Best Quality Embryos to Transfer
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•IVF outcome: How Does Advancing Age and Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Affect Egg/Embryo “Competency” and How Should the Problem be addressed.