i110 Abstracts of the 30th Annual Meeting of ESHRE, Munich, Germany, 29 June – 2 July, 2014 3 Central Manchester University Hospitals, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Manchester, United Kingdom 4 University of Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, United Kingdom Study question: Does extending luteal support with progesterone follow- ing IVF treatment beyond confirmation of biochemical pregnancy test until 12 weeks gestation improve ongoing clinical pregnancy and live birth rates? Summary answer: Extending luteal support beyond confirmation of biochemi- cal pregnancy does not improve the clinical or live birth rate after IVF. What is known already: Luteal support following IVF is a compulsory com- ponent of IVF treatment. Down-regulation of the pituitary gland, aspiration of granulosa cells and supraphysiological oestradiol levels produced, reduce the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rate following IVF. Supplementation of the luteal phase with progesterone after embryo transfer significantly improves pregnancy outcome. The optimum duration of luteal support has not been de- fined. Worldwide 15% clinics use progesterone until pregnancy test and 85% up to and beyond 12 weeks gestation. Study design, size, duration: A prospective randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. The study allocated women with a confirmed pregnancy test result following IVF to receive additional progesterone for 8 weeks or placebo. 467 women were randomised between November 2008 and May 2012. Alloca- tion concealment was revealed after completion of data analysis. Participants/materials, setting, methods: The trial was performed in a large UK IVF unit. Women received vaginal progesterone (Cyclogest 400 mg BD) or placebo until 12 weeks gestation. Pregnancy ultrasound including uterine artery doppler analysis and serum biochemical profiles were performed at 7 and 12 weeks. 228 women received progesterone and 233 women received placebo. Main results and the role of chance: Viable pregnancy at 12 weeks gestation was 167/228 patients (73.3%) in patients exposed to prolonged luteal support compared to 167/223 (71.7%) in patients exposed to placebo; adjusted risk ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.09). There was no difference in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates between the study interventions. There was no difference in the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities, doppler indices, pregnancy complications or birth and neonatal outcomes. Limitations, reason for caution: We believe the results can be universally extrapolated to all patients undergoing IVF treatment. Wider implications of the findings: Worldwide 85% of IVF clinicians use luteal support beyond confirmation of biochemical pregnancy. Our study reports no ad- vantages of increasing duration of luteal support in terms of clinical pregnancy or live birth rate, incidence of pregnancy complications or adverse neonatal outcome. By reducing exposure of luteal support to two weeks following IVF treatment, the pregnancy rate is successfully maintained whilst reducing the treatment burden for patients and reducing the financial implications of un- necessary medicines. Study funding/competing interest(s): Funding by commercial/corporate company(ies), Actavis UK Ltd, Moulton Charitable Foundation. Trial registration number: ISRCTN Registration Number: 05696887, Eudract No: 2006-000599-33. O-266 The effectiveness of an IUI program compared to no treatment. A matched cohort study I. Scholten 1 , M. van Zijl 2 , I.M. Custers 1 , M. Brandes 3 , J. Gianotten 4 , P.J.Q. van der Linden 5 , P.G.A. Hompes 6 , B.W.J. Mol 7 1 Academic Medical Centre, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Catharina Ziekenhuis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecologie, Eindhoven, The Netherlands 3 Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology’s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands 4 Kennemer Gasthuis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Haarlem, The Netherlands 5 Deventer Ziekenhuis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Deventer, The Netherlands 6 Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 7 School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Adelaide, Australia O-264 NGS vs. aCGH for the detection of segmental aneuploidies in human blastocysts M. Vera 1 , C.E. Michel 2 , A. Mercader 3 , F. Kokocinski 2 , L. Rodrigo 1 , A.J. Bladon 2 , E. Mateu 1 , N. Al-Asmar 4 , D. Blesa 1 , C. Simón 1 , C. Rubio 1 1 IVIOMICS S.L., Paterna, Spain 2 Illumina Inc., Cambridge, United Kingdom 3 Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad (IVI), Valencia, Spain 4 IviGen, Miami, U.S.A. Study question: To evaluate the capability of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to detect pure and mosaic segmental aneuploidies in trophectoderm bi- opsies and the concordance rate with results from the current platform of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Summary answer: NGS allows the detection of pure segmental aneuploidies in human blastocyst with the same efficiency as aCGH. NGS platform software could be trained to establish new thresholds for the detection of segmental an- euploidies in mosaic blastocysts. What is known already: Comprehensive chromosomal screening (CCS) has become a must in every fertility center around the world. Nowadays, aCGH is the most used method for this purpose. Recently, NGS has emerged as a promis- ing platform for the aneuploidy detection in the human embryo. Study design, size, duration: Amplified DNA from trophectoderm biopsies in which segmental aneuploidies (Range: 12.4-187.8Mb) were detected by aCGH in a CCS cycle were selected. A total of 50 segmental aneuploidies were reana- lyzed by NGS. In addition, blastocyst containing 17 segmental events were disas- sembled into single cells and analyzed by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Participants/materials, setting, methods: Samples from each embryo under- went whole genome amplification. For aCGH, DNA was labeled, co-hybridized in 24 sure arrays and analyzed by BlueFuse Multi software. For NGS, a library was generated from dsDNA and loaded into a MiSeq instrument. Finally, FISH analysis was performed by using telomeric probes for affected chromosomes. Main results and the role of chance: Segmental aneuploidies were classified into pure and mosaic according to log 2 ratio values in the aCGH experiments. In pure segmentals a concordance rate of 97.1% (34/35) was found with NGS. In the mosaic ones the concordance rate was 80% (12/15). FISH validation for pure segmentals in disassembled blastocysts confirmed the results in 8 out of 10 cases (39.0 ± 18.7 analyzed cells per blastocyst). FISH was performed for 7 mosaic segmentals, showing a mosaic pattern in 4 of them (54.2 ± 34.5 cells), with an average of 39.7 ± 22.5% aneuploid cells per blastocyst. In total, only 4 discrepancies out of 50 were observed between aCGH and NGS. FISH analysis was performed in 2 of them resulting in a concordance with aCGH in one of them, and with NGS in the other. Limitations, reason for caution: This study was limited by the sample size. Beyond that, extremely low mosaicism levels in the blastocyst could have not been detected. Finally, we assumed that mosaicism degree in biopsied cells was the same that in whole embryo, but no necessarily. Wider implications of the findings: Studies like this are essential for the de- velopment of appropriate software that allows the efficient translation of NGS into the CCS programs. Study funding/competing interest(s): Funding by commercial/corporate company(ies), IVIOMICS S.L., ILLUMINA Inc. Trial registration number: N/A. SELECTED ORAL COMMUNICATION SESSION SESSION 66: FEMALE INFERTILITY: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT Wednesday 2 July 2014 14:00 - 15:15 O-265 Does extending luteal support with progesterone beyond positive pregnancy test following IVF treatment improve pregnancy outcome? R.T. Russell 1 , M. Gazvani 1 , C.R. Kingsland 1 , Z. Alfirevic 2 , M. Turner 2 , Y. Sajjad 3 , P. Hardy 4 , J. Townend 4 1 Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Hewitt Fertility Centre, Liverpool, United Kingdom 2 University of Liverpool, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Liverpool, United Kingdom