Rethinking IVF: NYC Study Urges New Approach to Embryo Selection

icon-person

Our Team

icon-calendar

3/24/2025

New York City – based Fertility Center publishes an important article in Human Reproduction Open: “Why the hypothesis of embryo selection in IVF/ICSI must finally be reconsidered.”

Since almost its initial establishment, the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been based on obtaining through use of so-called fertility drugs more than the usual single oocyte (egg) that a natural ovulatory cycle produces in a female. Multiple oocytes then allowed for production of multiple embryos with improved cumulative pregnancy and live birth chances. Having multiple embryos available, however, immediately raised the question, which among them are the best embryos to transfer first, leading to the concept of “embryo selection,” which since has become a dogma of IVF practice.

The assessment of “embryo morphology” (how embryos look under the microscope) was the first method of embryo selection applied and– at least to a degree – proved valuable in ranking available embryos in their chances of leading to pregnancy and delivery. But IVF practice demanded more categorical results. The search for better embryo selection methods, therefore, became the most actively pursued research goal in worldwide IVF practice, to this day consuming otherwise unmatched resources in the IVF field. 

On first impression, some of these efforts appeared to bear fruits, as investigators, for example, claimed that extended embryo culture from day-3 after fertilization (cleavage-stage) to days 5-7 (blastocyst-stage) improved IVF cycle outcomes. As a consequence, the embryos of almost all IVF cycles are now routinely - at significant added cost - cultured to blastocyst stage, even though many studies have since demonstrated that this practice in general populations does not improve pregnancy outcomes and in some patient sub-populations, indeed, reduces pregnancy and live birth chances.

Other investigators proposed testing of embryos for chromosomal abnormalities (aneuploidy) to deselect chromosomal abnormal embryos from transfers, as we now know wrongly claiming, that this would improve IVF outcomes for the remaining normal (euploid) embryos. This procedure, first introduced over 20 years ago and now called preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), is currently - at an additional costs of at least $5,000 per cycle - still used in the U.S. in over half of all IVF cycles despite 2024 joined opinions of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) that none of the by proponent claimed outcome benefits from PGT-A have indeed, been confirmed. Somewhat unsurprisingly, PGT-A, therefore, has recently become the subject of several class-action suits in the U.S. In Australia one such suit was in 2024 already settled.

Worldwide disappointing experience with these two IVF practices and several others relying on the hypothesis that better embryo selection would improve IVF cycle outcomes, now led a group of investigators from NYC’s Center for Human Reproduction  – an internationally recognized fertility center  – to publish a paper in Human Reproduction Open, a medical journal of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), in which they call for embryo selection attempts beyond embryo morphology to be finally laid to rest.1 

Because a majority of research dollars in the infertility field still are spent on embryo selection procedures – confirmed by the current boom in proposed A.I. offerings in the service of embryo selection - the authors of the paper, moreover, not only call for an end to clinical embryo selection procedures but also to and end to the excessive research funding of projects involving the hypothesis of embryo selection. IVF practice, indeed, could greatly benefit from switching this funding to more promising areas of potential exploration. 

The authors in the paper also explain why – for basic biological reasons – embryo selection simply cannot work. The most obvious among those explanations is that every embryo cohort in a single IVF cycle acquires a predetermined maximal cumulative pregnancy chance once the number of available and transferrable embryos has been established which can no longer be approved (though it can be negatively affected by poor practice

This group of investigators also already in 2020 noted the association of to this day declining live birth rates in fresh IVF cycles in the U.S., apparently associated with increasing PGT-A practice.2 Their argument of redirecting research dollars to other than embryo selection goals, therefore, appears logical and cost-effective.

Norbert Gleicher, MD, lead author of the here announced paper, is available for further information regarding this subject. Please call 212-994-4400 at Center For Human Reproduction or request further information at [email protected]. He is the Medical Director and Chief Scientist of the CHR in NYC, a Visiting Scientist at Rockefeller University, and President of the not-for-profit Foundation for reproductive Medicine, all located in NYC.

REFERENCES

1. Gleicher N, Gayete-Lafuente S, Barad DH, Patrizio P, Albertini DF. Why the hypothesis of embryo selection in IVF/ICSI must finally be reconsidered. Human reproduction Open;2025(2):hoaf011

2. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Worldwide decline of IVF birth rates and its probable causes. Human reproduction Open 2020(3):hoz017

I discovered your clinic when I was at my lowest. I happened on a video on your you tube channel titled, "The burning out pcos." Just that video gave me much needed hope and direction because I couldn't get a diagnosis of why I was cold, lethargic and weak. I decided to become a patient for my fertility problems and fortunately I could consult online. Extending help internationally is really helpful. It is not easy to find this calibre, everywhere. I was 43 when I told Dr Gleicher I couldn't afford to travel there to do my IVF. He made sure he gave me some nuggets of wisdom to go with. For one, he insisted that my numbers showed I could have a child using my own eggs, like I wanted. The one clinic in my country doubted I could have a child in my late 30s. Another clinic in another country in the region would not even consult with me because I was 43 and not willing to use donor eggs. Another was willing to take me on but we had 2 failed IVF cycles. They also recommended donor eggs. I'm happy to share that I conceived naturally at 45 and I am looking at a perfectly healthy 5 month old baby boy. May the good Lord bless you and your work. You are truly doing the work of God. I could withstand the pressure to take donor eggs because you were very clear that my desire was possible. Congratulations and best wishes!

OL Office Visit

Beautiful treatment and kindness. The Dr and front desk staff are incredible. Dr.B is someone special experienced beyond most practitioners .I highly recommend the continuity of treatment and the support is sacred. There is no such thing as NO anything is possible when it comes to your miracle @ CHR Thank you!

S.T. Google

The reception staff was kind and attentive, and Miss Ludmila and Dr. Barad were wonderful: kind, professional, thorough, and made things very comfortable.

A.K. Google

I have been blessed to find CHR on my journey. If anyone is lucky to find the clinic they will be surrounded not only by the greatest medical knowledge and research when it comes to IVF but a group of amazing professional.Everyone I have met there is just genuinely kind, professional and so helpful. I cannot say enough great things about CHR and the only way to know what I'm talking about is to give them a chance. Thank you CHR

M.P. Yelp

The office is beautiful and spotless. From the moment you arrive, the staff welcomes you with kindness and professionalism. They are very formal yet friendly, making the entire experience pleasant. One thing I really appreciated is that they do not question you or make you feel uncomfortable; they simply treat you with respect and efficiency. Overall, consultations here are quite relaxed rather than stressful or nerve-wracking.

J.C. Google

203

Total Reviews

4.9

Average Rating

star-full star-full star-full star-full star-half
privacy We respect your privacy
*All information subject to change. Images may contain models. Individual results are not guaranteed and may vary.