P-183 Blastocyst speed versus blastocyst look: Which is the better predictor of clinical pregnancy and live birth following time-lapse culture and single blastocyst transfer?

Abstract Study question To compare predictive value for pregnancy and live birth of morphological versus morphokinetic assessment blastocysts after time-lapse culture single blastocyst transfer. Summary answer Blastocyst was not superior in predicting compared to morphology, but provides additional information, particularly morphologically poorer-quality blastocysts. What is known already with technology enables evaluation both developmental speed classical morphology including Gardner scoring the blastocyst. One approach assess use classification proposed by Campbell, Fishel, et al., based on time start blastulation (tSB) duration forming (dB). However, beyond advantages undisturbed embryo culture, kinetic data from debated. design, size, EDCOS (Embryo Developmental profiles Controlled Ovarian Stimulation cycles using follitropin alfa) a multicentre, prospective cohort study patients undergoing IVF/ICSI whose embryos were cultured incubator devices 10 ART centres throughout Denmark Sweden. Patients (including donor oocyte cycles) who had ovarian stimulation alfa (Bemfola®) zygotes available monitoring EmbryoScope™ device (Vitrolife) invited join this study. Participants/materials, setting, methods Morphological prognostic classifications transfers (SET) determined three subpopulations: fresh autologous SET (311 women), frozen (246 women; 345 transfers) (38 59 transfers). All graded five grades Amorph (best) Emorph (worst) their score morphokinetically Akin Ckin tSB dB. Main results role chance Overall ongoing rates (OPR/LBR) Akin, Bkin 36.1%, 30.0% 16.3% (P = 0.021) 30.4%, 21.8% 9.1% 0.000), respectively. OPR LBR Amorph, Bmorph, Cmorph, Dmorph 41.9%, 37.8%, 30.8%, 19.0% 15.6% 0.000) 36.6%, 29.1%, 15.6%, 16.5% 8.3% 0.002), For blastocysts, 50%, 21.4% 7.1% 0.009) 33.3%, 10.8% 0% 0.003), Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses achieved areas under 55.7%, 58.9% 67.2% morphokinetic, combined classifications, respectively; 53.4%, 64.0% 65.6%, respectively, SET. Limitations, reasons caution This an observational no control group, conducted usual clinical practice. Data collected prospectively, although clinics could deselect rank according own procedures. outcome subsequent transfer also analysed. Wider implications findings Selection at stage viable option. Combining supporting information guide selection, especially Trial registration number Not applicable