ObGyn Intelligence
Evidence Matters
Prepare
Evidence LibraryBefore pregnancy and fertilityThe add-ons
Evidence Library · The add-ons

PGT-A: screening embryos for chromosome number

Fewer miscarriages, and in the best trials, fewer babies.

This is the most heavily sold add-on in fertility care, and it has the most evidence. The evidence is not what the marketing suggests.

The trial in the previous topic found ongoing pregnancy per patient randomized of 41.8% with screening against 43.5% without.

The larger trial, and the one that measured what patients actually want. 1,212 women aged 20 to 37 with three or more good blastocysts, followed through up to three successive single transfers within twelve months:

OutcomeWith screeningConventional IVFDifference (95% CI)
Cumulative live birth77.2% (468 of 606)81.8% (496 of 606)−4.6 points (−9.2 to −0.0)
Cumulative clinical pregnancy loss8.7%12.6%−3.9 points (−7.5 to −0.2)

Read plainly: in good-prognosis patients, adding the test was associated with about 28 fewer babies per 1,000 women treated, and about 39 fewer miscarriages per 1,000. Both effects are real, and the live birth difference sits at the very edge of statistical significance.

One design point matters for how much weight to put on this. The trial was set up to test whether conventional IVF was no worse than screening, allowing a margin of 7 percentage points. Conventional IVF passed that test comfortably.

This is a genuine values choice, and it should be presented as oneThe UK regulator rates this add-on red for improving the chance of having a baby and green for reducing the chance of miscarriage. Both ratings are correct, and they point in different directions.

A woman for whom the experience of miscarriage is the dominant fear may reasonably choose differently from a woman optimising for the highest chance of a baby. That is not a question the evidence answers. It is a question about what you would rather risk, and nobody should resolve it for you.

The part patients are least often told. Some embryos come back "mosaic", neither clearly normal nor clearly abnormal, and historically many were discarded. A blinded trial transferred embryos without using the result to select them, then unblinded: across 484 normal, 282 low-grade mosaic and 131 medium-grade mosaic embryos, live birth and miscarriage rates were equivalent. No mosaicism or uniparental disomy was found in the resulting pregnancies or newborns. In a companion mapping study, when mosaicism affected fewer than half the cells in one biopsy, only 1% of those abnormalities were present elsewhere in the embryo.

A five-to-ten-cell biopsy is being used to classify an embryo of roughly 200 cells. For low and medium grade mosaic results, that classification does not predict the outcome.

Where the professional bodies now standThe fertility societies' 2024 opinion states that the value of PGT-A as a routine screening test for all patients undergoing in vitro fertilization has not been demonstrated, and that the value of PGT-A to lower the risk of clinical miscarriage is also unclear.

On cost, an analysis of 158,665 US cycles found that in patients under 35 the test produced worse clinical outcomes at higher cost, and that from the patient's perspective the incremental cost per live birth favoured not testing from under 35 through age 38.
Where this comes from:
68. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1071-1079.e7.
69. Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H, Sun Y, Gong F, Li R, et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(22):2047-2058.
70. Cornelisse S, Zagers M, Kostova E, Fleischer K, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;9(9):CD005291.
71. Capalbo A, Poli M, Rienzi L, Girardi L, Patassini C, Fabiani M, et al. Mosaic human preimplantation embryos and their developmental potential in a prospective, non-selection clinical trial. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(12):2238-2247.
72. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2024;122(3):421-434.
84. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Treatment add-ons with limited evidence. London: HFEA; published October 16, 2023, last reviewed February 26, 2026.
118. Lee M, Lofgren KT, Thomas A, Lanes A, Goldman R, Ginsburg ES, et al. The cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in the United States: an analysis of cost and birth outcomes from 158,665 in vitro fertilization cycles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(1):55.e1-55.e17.

Covered in the essential classes

Continue

More from The add-ons

This page is educational. It supports the conversation with your own clinicians. It is not consent to any treatment, and it cannot assess you. If you are worried about a symptom now, see urgent warning signs.