Time-Lapse Monitoring in IVF: More Expensive, Not More Effective

A recent study from Amsterdam UMC challenges the efficacy of time-lapse monitoring in in vitro fertilization (IVF), revealing that this method does not result in increased pregnancy rates or expedite the time it takes to get pregnant.

Despite promises to "identify the most viable embryos," time-lapse monitoring, a more expensive approach than the traditional one, does not improve clinical outcomes, according to the research.

Understanding Time-Lapse Monitoring in IVF

In IVF, patients often yield multiple usable embryos, and selecting the embryo for transfer into the uterus is a critical decision based on the cell division pattern in the initial three to five days of embryo development. Traditional methods involve removing embryos from the incubator daily for microscopic evaluation. Time-lapse incubators, however, incorporate built-in cameras to record continuous embryo development. A computer algorithm then assesses growth patterns without disrupting the stable incubator environment.

Rising Use Despite Limited Evidence

While time-lapse monitoring has gained popularity in IVF centers worldwide, claiming to enhance pregnancy chances, the study notes a scarcity of large clinical studies evaluating its true value. Despite being a relatively expensive method, its increased use lacks robust scientific validation.

Largest Study on Time-Lapse Monitoring

The study, conducted between 2017 and 2021, compared IVF results from 1731 patients in 15 Dutch fertility clinics, making it the largest randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of time-lapse monitoring on pregnancy rates. The analysis differentiated between IVF treatments with time-lapse monitoring, conventional treatments, and the stable culture conditions provided by time-lapse incubators. For the first time, the study examined the number of patients achieving pregnancy within one year, going beyond the results of the first embryo transfer.

Study Findings

The study revealed that time-lapse monitoring did not enhance the pregnancy rate within a year for the participants. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the time taken to achieve pregnancy among the groups. The stable culture conditions in time-lapse incubators and the computerized embryo selection method did not improve IVF treatment success rates. The research questions the cost-effectiveness of time-lapse monitoring, pointing out that the high expenses associated with purchasing and maintaining this technology do not lead to increased pregnancy rates.

Clinical embryologist Dorit Kieslinger emphasizes the importance of evidence-based practices in IVF, cautioning against the adoption of new technologies without scientific support. The study underscores that the latest technology may not necessarily translate to improved pregnancy outcomes.

Reference: New IVF Method: more expensive, not more effective (amsterdamumc.org)