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.
Hi Dr. Sher,
Is it possible to have implantation bleeding (light brown spotting for two days max) with an ectopic pregnancy, since the embryo does not implant in the uterus? Also, is early implantation (possibly even day 4 past ovulation) a sign of ectopic? Thank you in advance.
Of course an ectopic is on the cards but there is no relationship between an early +ve test and an ectopic.
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr. Sher,
Our date of conception was either Friday October 6th or Saturday October 7th. I had a tiny bit of implantation spotting very early on, starting Thursday October 12th. By this past Sunday October 15th, I tested positive with a home pregnancy test. On Monday the 16th, I went in for bloodwork and my HCG was a whopping 774.
Unfortunately, today’s bloodwork showed that my HCG had only gone up to 1075. That’s only a 39% increase and far below the doubling that’s supposed to happen. My RE is asking me to come back in on Friday to test again, hoping the growth rate will pick up. But of course I’m concerned, particularly about an ectopic. Is it more likely to be the case because of the early implantation and strong initial numbers? Any perspective here would be appreciated.
That is a slow rise in hCG. Unfortunately only time will tell if this is a viable implantation. Repeat the tests as directed and if they continue to rise, do an US in 2 weeks!
G-d bless!
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr. Sher,
I only have one embryo and it came back with the results of 46, XY, del(2)(p25.1-pter). Would you suggest I try to transfer it, or have it tested for mosacism? Or is it too anbormal?
Thank you!
I would transfer it in the hope that it is mosaic BUT I would do prenatal genetic testing (CVS or amniocentesis) to confirm the normalcy of the pregnancy and terminate it if there is a significant aneuploidy. However, please discuss with your own RE and get genetic counseling.
Geoff Sher
Hello Dr,
I have two questions for you. I am 40 and Husband is 41. I am normal with no known problems. My husband has Zero morphology and low count with 15% motility. We tried ivf @ 40. 2 cycles – fresh transfer.
CYCLE 1- 7 EGGS , 3 BLASTS, 1 GOOD, 2 FAIR, – PGS – 1- COMPLEX ABNORMAL , 2- MOSAIC MONOSOMY 19, 3 MOSAIC TRISOMY 22. DAY 5 TRASNFER OF COMPLEX ABNORMAL (SINCE PGS WAS NOT KNOWN) – NO PREGNANCY
CYCLE 2 – 12 EGGS (USED OMNITROPE) – 12 EGGS – 3 BLASTS – ALL COMPLEX ABNORMAL. DAY 5 TRANSFER – NO PREG.
Please advise
1. If it is viable to do another cycle in hope of one normal
2. Should we use the mosaic? if so which one is better than the other ?
3. Should we move on to donor eggs/sperm/embroys?
Thanks
Phattu
1. If it is viable to do another cycle in hope of one normal
A: I would seriously cdonsider doing so. However the protocol used for ovarian stimulation should 1st be reviewed and possibly revised.
In my opinion, the protocol used for ovarian stimulation, against the backdrop of age, and ovarian reserve are the drivers of egg quality and egg quality is the most important factor affecting embryo “competency”.
Older women as well as those who (regardless of age) have diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) tend to produce fewer and less “competent” eggs, the main reason for reduced IVF success in such cases. The compromised outcome is largely due to the fact that such women tend to have increased LH biological activity which often results in excessive LH-induced ovarian testosterone production which in turn can have a deleterious effect on egg/embryo “competency”.
Certain ovarian stimulation regimes either promote excessive LH production (e.g. short agonist/Lupron- “flare” protocols, clomiphene and Letrozole), augment LH/hCG delivered through additional administration (e.g. high dosage menotropins such as Menopur), or fail to protect against body’s own/self-produced LH (e.g. late antagonist protocols where drugs such as Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron that are first administered 6-7 days after ovarian stimulation has commenced).
I try to avoid using such protocols/regimes (especially) in older women and those with DOR, favoring instead the use of a modified, long pituitary down-regulation protocol (the agonist/antagonist conversion protocol-A/ACP) augmented by adding supplementary human growth hormone (HGH). I further recommend Staggered IVF with embryo banking of PGS (next generation gene sequencing/NGS)-normal blastocysts in such cases. This type of approach will in my opinion, optimize the chance of a viable pregnancy per embryo transfer procedure and provide an opportunity to capitalize on whatever residual ovarian reserve and egg quality still exists, allowing the chance to “make hay while the sun still shines”.
2. Should we use the mosaic? if so which one is better than the other ?
A: Yes! I would transfer possible mosaic embryos.
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 an 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.
Most 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, there is now growing evidence to suggest that following embryo transfer, some aneuploid embryos will in the process of ongoing development, convert to the euploid state (i.e. “autocorrection”) and then go on to develop into chromosomally normal offspring. In fact, I am personally aware of several such cases occurring within our IVF network. 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.” As stated, some mosaic embryos will In the process of subsequent cell replication convert to the normal euploid state (i.e. autocorrect)
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” occurs when following fertilization and subsequent cell replication (cleavage), some cells (blastomeres) of a meiotically 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 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 differentiate between these two varieties of aneuploidy would be of considerable clinical value. And would provide a strong argument in favor of preserving certain aneuploid embryos for future dispensation.
Aneuploidy, involves the addition (trisomy) or subtraction (monosomy) of one chromosome in a given pair. As previously stated, some aneuploidies are meiotic in origin while others are mitotic “mosaics”. Certain aneuploidies involve only a single, chromosome pair (simple aneuploidy) while others involve more than a single pair (i.e. complex aneuploidy). Aside from monosomy involving absence of the y-sex chromosome (i.e. XO) which can resulting in a live birth (Turner syndrome) all monosomies involving autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) are lethal and will not result in viable offspring). Some autosomal meiotic aneuploidies, especially trisomies 13, 18, 21, can progress to viable, but severely chromosomally defective babies. All other meiotic autosomal trisomies will almost invariably, either not attach to the uterine lining or upon attachment, will soon be rejected. All forms of meiotic aneuploidy are irreversible while mitotic aneuploidy (“mosaicism) often autocorrects in the uterus. Most complex aneuploidies are meiotic in origin and will almost invariably fail to propagate viable pregnancies.
There is presently no practical test that can reliable differentiate between meiotic and mitotic aneuploidy. Notwithstanding this, the fact that some “mosaic” embryos can autocorrect in the uterus, makes a strong argument in favor of transferring aneuploid of embryos in the hope that the one(s) transferred might be “mosaic” and might propagate viable healthy pregnancies. On the other hand, it is the fear that embryo aneuploidy might result in a chromosomally abnormal baby that has led many IVF physicians to strongly oppose the transfer of aneuploid embryos to the uterus.
Certain meiotic aneuploid trisomy embryos (e.g. trisomies 13, 18, & 21) can and sometimes do, result in aneuploid concepti. Thus, in my opinion, unless the woman/couple receiving such embryos is willing to commit to terminating a resulting pregnancy found through amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to be so affected, she/they are probably best advised not to transfer such embryos. Other autosomal trisomy embryos will hardly ever produce viable euploid concepti and can thus, in my opinion be transferred in the hope that auto correction will occur in-utero. However, in all cases, and amniocentesis or CVS should be performed to make certain that the baby is euploid. Conversely, no autosomal monosomy embryos are believed to be capable of resulting in viable pregnancies, thereby making the transfer of autosomal monosomy embryos, in the hope that they are “mosaic”, a far less risky proposition. Needless to say, if such action is being contemplated in any such cases, it is absolutely essential to make full disclosure to the patient (s) , and to insure 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.
3. Should we move on to donor eggs/sperm/embroys?
A: Not as yet!
Please visit my new Blog on this very site, http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com, find the “search bar” and 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
•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
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•The “Biological Clock” and how it should Influence the Selection and Design of Ovarian Stimulation Protocols for IVF.
• A Rational Basis for selecting Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) protocols in women with Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR)
•Diagnosing and Treating Infertility due to Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR)
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in Older women and Women who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): A Rational Basis for Selecting a Stimulation Protocol
•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
•Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) versus “Fresh” ET: How to Make the Decision
•Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET): A Rational Approach to Hormonal Preparation and How new Methodology is Impacting 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.
•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?
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•Traveling for IVF from Out of State/Country–
•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
•Premature Luteinization (“the premature LH surge): Why it happens and how it can be prevented.
•IVF Egg Donation: A Comprehensive Overview
If you are interested in seeking my advice or services, I urge you to contact my concierge, Julie Dahan ASAP to set up a Skype or an in-person consultation with me. You can also contact Julie by phone or via email at 702-533-2691/ Julied@sherivf.com You can also apply online at http://www.SherIVF.com .
*FYI
The 4th edition of my newest book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies” is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.
Geoffrey Sher MD
Dr. Sher, I hope you can see my message and reply. I am starting IVF soon. My doctor is away of the center. She prescribed birth control pills for me for 1.5 months, so she can do egg retrieval when she is back. I feel lost, since my cycle is moved 2 weeks now. Can this affect outcome of IVF?
One often hears the expressed opinion that the BCP suppresses response to ovarian stimulation. This is not the case, provided that the BCP is overlapped with administration of an agonist (e.g. Lupron, Buserelin, Superfact) for several days leading up to the start of menstruation and the initiation of ovarian stimulation cycle with gonadotropin drugs. If the latter precaution is not taken, and the cycle of stimulation is initiated coming directly off the BCP the response will often be blunted and subsequent egg quality could be adversely affected. The explanation for this is that in natural (unstimulated) as well as in cycles stimulated with fertility drugs, the ability of follicles to properly respond to FSH stimulation is dependent on their having developed FSH-responsive receptors . Pre-antral follicles (PAF) do not have such primed FSH receptors and thus cannot respond properly to FSH stimulation with gonadotropins. The acquisition of FSH receptor responsivity requires that the pre-antral follicles be exposed to FSH, for a number of days (5-7) during which time they attain “FSH-responsivity” and are now known as antral follicles (AF). These AF’s are now able to respond properly to stimulation with administered FSH-gonadotropins. In regular menstrual cycles, the rising FSH output from the pituitary gland insures that PAFs convert tor AF’s. The BCP (as well as prolonged administration of estrogen/progesterone) suppresses FSH. This suppression needs to be countered by artificially causing blood FSH levels to rise in order to cause PAF to AF conversion prior to COS commencing, otherwise pre-antral-to –antral follicle conversion will not take place in an orderly fashion, the duration of ovarian stimulation will be prolonged and both follicle and egg development may be compromised. GnRH agonists (e.g. Lupron, Buserelin, Superfact) , cause an immediate surge in release of FSH by the pituitary gland thus causing conversion from PAF to SAF. This is why, women who take a BCP to launch a cycle of COS need to have an overlap of the BCP with an agonist. By overlapping the BCP with an agonist for a few days prior to menstruation the early recruited follicles are able to complete their developmental drive to the AF stage and as such, be ready to respond appropriately to optimal ovarian stimulation. Using this approach, the timing of the initiation of the IVF treatment cycle can readily and safely be regulated and controlled by varying the length of time that the woman is on the BCP.
Since optimizing follicular response to COS requires that prior to stimulation with gonadotropins, FSH-induced conversion from PAF to AF’s first be completed and the BCP suppresses FSH, it follows when it comes to women launching COS coming off a BCP something needs to be done to cause a rise in FSH for 5-7 days prior to menstruation heralding the cycle of CO S.This is where overlapping the BCP with an agonist (e.g. Lupron/Superfact/Buserelin) comes in. The agonist causes FSH to be released by the pituitary gland and if overlapped with the BCP for several days and this will (within 2-5 days) facilitate PAF to AF conversion…. in time to start COS with the onset of menstruation. Initiating ovarian stimulation in women taking a BCP, without doing this is suboptimal
I believe it to be essential regardless of the protocol of COS protocol being contemplated, for women who launching ovarian stimulation coming off a BCP to overlap with an agonist for several days in advance of initiating ovarian stimulation with the onset of menstruation,
Geoff Sher