The Istanbul consensus update: a revised ESHRE/ALPHA consensus on oocyte and embryo static and dynamic morphological assessment†,‡.

STUDY QUESTION

What are the current recommended criteria for morphological assessment of oocytes, zygotes, and embryos?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The present ESHRE/Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine consensus document provides several novel recommendations to assess oocyte and embryo morphology and rank embryos for transfer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A previous Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine/ESHRE consensus on oocyte and embryo morphological assessment was published in 2011. After more than a decade, and the integration of time-lapse technology into embryo culture and assessment, a thorough review and update was needed.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A working group consisting of Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine executive committee members and ESHRE Special interest group of Embryology members formulated recommendations on oocyte and embryo assessment.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The working group included 17 internationally recognized experts with extensive experience in clinical embryology. Seven members represented Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and eight members represented ESHRE, along with to two methodological experts from the ESHRE central office. Based on a systematic literature search and discussion of existing evidence, the recommendations of the Istanbul Consensus (2011) were reassessed and, where appropriate, updated based on consensus within the working group. A stakeholder review was organized after the updated draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the working group, the Alpha executive committee and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This updated consensus paper provides 20 recommendations focused on the timeline of preimplantation developmental events and morphological criteria for oocyte, zygote, and embryo assessment. Based on duration of embryo culture, recommendations are given on the frequency and timing of assessments to ensure consistency and effectiveness.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Several criteria relevant to oocyte and embryo morphology have not been well studied, leading to either a recommendation against their use for grading or for their use in ranking rather than grading. Future updates may require further revision of these recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This document provides embryologists with advice on best practices when assessing oocyte and embryo quality based on the most recent evidence.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The consensus meeting and writing of the paper were supported by funds from ESHRE and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The working group members did not receive any payment. G.C. declared payments or honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter and Cooper Surgical. A.C. declared text book royalties (Mastering Clinical Embryology, published 2024), consulting fees from Cooper Surgical, Gedeon Richter and TMRW Life Sciences, honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter, and participation in the HFEA Scientific Advances Committee; she also disclosed being treasurer and vice-president of Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine, a shareholder in Care Fertility Limited and Fertile Mind Limited, and having stock options in TMRW Life Sciences and U-Ploid Biotechnology Ltd. L.R. declared consulting fees from Organon, payments or honoraria for lectures from Merck, Organon, IBSA, Finox, Geden Richter, Origio, Organon, Ferring, Fundation IVI; she also disclosed being a member of the Advisory Scientific Board of IVIRMA (Paid) and a member of the Advisory Scientific Board of Nterilizer (unpaid). I.S. declared payments or honoraria for lectures from Vitrolife and Cooper Surgical, and stock options from Alife Health. M.A. declared payments or honoraria for lectures from Vitrolife and support for attending meetings from Vitrolife and Cooper Surgical (both unrelated to this manuscript). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the consensus views of the members of this working group based on the scientific evidence available at the time of the meeting. GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.