2 replies to this topic

[anytime now]

I'm interested in the new methods of PGD allowing all chromosomes to be tested.

The long testing method that takes 2 weeks for results requires vitrification.

I believe you previously replied that the thaw rate for vitrified embryos was about 80% which is what my clinic stated as well.
But I'm confused as US clinics stating thaw rates from vitrification are upwards of 95% (they also say that the attrition rate for the CGh normal embryos is negligiable). Can you help me to understand the reported differences in thaw rates, as this is of concern to me.


The US clinics doing the longer form of CGH analysis comment that micro array CGH is not able to get precise enough info from a single cell. That said, having come across this article on Reprogenetic's website, http://reprogenetics.com/news/news_17.pdf,I'm confused. To a non scientific eye, this looks like aCGH is reliable and ready to go.

Can you offer any clarifications? Is there a difference in risk between polar body biopsy and day 3 biopsy?


I'm now sitting on my 2nd pregnancy which is headed towards miscarriage, and struggling to know if I have any good options to prevent this from happenign again, aside from Donor Egg.

Your clarifications would be appreciated more than you know.

Thanks,

A.N.

[Sergeant]

I'm interested in the new methods of PGD allowing all chromosomes to be tested.

The long testing method that takes 2 weeks for results requires vitrification.

I believe you previously replied that the thaw rate for vitrified embryos was about 80% which is what my clinic stated as well.
But I'm confused as US clinics stating thaw rates from vitrification are upwards of 95% (they also say that the attrition rate for the CGh normal embryos is negligiable). Can you help me to understand the reported differences in thaw rates, as this is of concern to me.


The US clinics doing the longer form of CGH analysis comment that micro array CGH is not able to get precise enough info from a single cell. That said, having come across this article on Reprogenetic's website, http://reprogenetics.com/news/news_17.pdf,I'm confused. To a non scientific eye, this looks like aCGH is reliable and ready to go.

Can you offer any clarifications? Is there a difference in risk between polar body biopsy and day 3 biopsy?


I'm now sitting on my 2nd pregnancy which is headed towards miscarriage, and struggling to know if I have any good options to prevent this from happenign again, aside from Donor Egg.

Your clarifications would be appreciated more than you know.

Thanks,

A.N.

[Sergeant]

Hi there. I'm in the UK and we have just undergone our 4th ICSI and had we got enough eggs we were candidates for Array CGH. The polar bodies of the eggs would have been removed at fertilisation and then checked to see which eggs were chromosomally 'good'. They would then be left until they were 5 days old and then a blastosphere would be removed and tested. The results take 48 hours to come back so the embryos would be vitrified. The vitrification process had a 95% chance thaw rate as the usual process is to freeze the eggs and it's acutally the ice particles that cause fragmentation and distress to the embryo. Vitrification is kinder.
The embryos would then be put back on a FET cycle the following month ensuring that only chromosomally normal eggs were replaced. Only 2 eggs at a time would be put back. The rate of pregnancy for over 40 rose from 7-9% to 65% so equal to DE really. Sadly we only got 2 eggs and only 1 was mature so it was considered pointless to spend the money on aCGH.
We did a DE cycle and I suffered a MMC at 8+4 so the chance of MC is still there with DE. Good luck xxx