Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37733426›Full record

ArticleActa medica Lituanic2022

Implementation and Evaluation of Preimplantation Genetic Testing at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos.

Eglė Stukaitė-Ruibienė, Živilė Gudlevičienė, Andrė Amšiejienė, Evelina Dagytė, Rimantas Gricius, Kristina Grigalionienė, Algirdas Utkus, Diana Ramašauskaitė

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta medica Lituanic, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Eglė Stukaitė-RuibienėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7517-912X
Živilė GudlevičienėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2676-9534
Andrė AmšiejienėCentre of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Santaros Fertility Centre, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Vilnius University, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9813-0406
Evelina DagytėCentre for Medical Genetics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Vilnius University, Lithuania.
Rimantas GriciusCentre of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Santaros Fertility Centre, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Vilnius University, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5598-7381
Kristina GrigalionienėCentre for Medical Genetics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Vilnius University, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1245-4849
Algirdas UtkusVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5766-6653
Diana RamašauskaitėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1481-3558

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The most effective treatment of infertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF with Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) allows to identify embryos with a genetic abnormality associated with a specific medical disorder and to select the most optimal embryos for the transfer. PGT is divided into structural rearrangement testing (PGT-SR), monogenetic disorder testing (PGT-M), and aneuploidy testing (PGT-A). This study mostly analyzes PGT-SR, also describes a few cases of PGT-M. The aim of this study was to implement PGT procedure at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos (VUHSK) Santaros Fertility Centre (SFC) and to perform retrospective analysis of PGT procedures after the implementation. Materials and Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis was carried out. The study population included infertile couples who underwent PGT at SFC, VUHSK from January 01st, 2017 to December 31st, 2020. Ion PGM platform (Life Technologies, USA) and Ion ReproSeq PGS View Kit (Life Technologies, USA) were used for the whole genome amplification. Results were assessed using descriptive statistics. Results: PGT was successfully implemented in VUHSK in 2017. During the analyzed time period, thirty-four PGT procedures were performed for 26 couples. Two procedures were performed in 2017, 7 procedures - in 2018, 13 - in 2019, and 12 - in 2020. In comparison with all IVF procedures, 2.5% procedures were IVF with PGT, a highest percentage was in 2020 (3.8% of all procedures). The main indication for PGT was balanced chromosomal rearrangements (in 85.3% cases). In all 34 cases 515 oocytes were aspirated in total, 309 oocytes were fertilized, oocytes fertilization rate exceeded 60%. A normal diploid karyotype was found in 46 (16.8%) biopsied embryos. Out of all PGT procedures, 9 (26.5%) resulted in a clinical pregnancy. Six (66.7%) pregnancies were confirmed in 2019, and 3 (33.3%) - in 2020. Three (33.3%) pregnancies resulted in spontaneous abortion, 6 (66.7%) - in delivery. Conclusions: The implementation of PGT in VUHSK was successful. The most common indication for PGT was a reciprocal translocation. Oocytes fertilization rate exceeded 60%, a normal karyotype was found less than in one-fifth of biopsied embryos. A highest clinical pregnancy rate was achieved in 2019 when almost half of women conceived, which is probably related to the experience gained by the multidisciplinary team. This is the first study analyzing IVF with PGT in Lithuania, however, the results should be interpreted with caution due to a low number of total procedures performed.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologyfertilityin vitro fertilizationpreimplantation genetic testing

Identifiers

PMID37733426
PMCPMC9799000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.