Literature DB >> 18307902

[Comparison of vitrification and slow-freezing of human day 3 cleavage stage embryos: post-vitrification development and pregnancy outcomes].

Yuan Li1, Zi-jiang Chen, Hui-jun Yang, Wan-xia Zhong, Shui-ying Ma, Mei Li.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of vitrification with slow-freezing on the developmental ability of day 3 cleavage stage embryos.
METHODS: Patients who had no less than 4 high quality embryos were included in this study. These embryos were cryopreserved using the methods of vitrification or slow-freezing. In the cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles, the embryos which were cryopreserved using one of the methods were chosen randomly. The developmental ability of embryos was compared between these two groups.
RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were included in this study with 160 embryos. In the group of slow-freezing, 73 (91%) embryos were survived and achieved 15 (38%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 3 were twins and the implantation rate was 25% (18/73). In the group of vitrification, 71 (89%) embryos were survived and achieved 19 (48%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 9 were twins and the implantation rate was 39% (28/71), which was significantly higher than the slow-freezing group (P < 0.05). Otherwise, the clinical pregnant rate and multiple pregnant rate was higher in the group of vitrification than the slow-freezing group, but had no significance.
CONCLUSION: Vitrification is more benefit for the developmental ability of the thawed embryos and more suitable for the cryopreservation of day 3 cleavage stage embryos.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18307902

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 0529-567X


  6 in total

1.  Outcomes of day 3 embryo transfer with vitrification using Cryoleaf: a 3-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Xing-ling Wang; Xiao Zhang; Yao-qin Qin; Da-yong Hao; Hui-rong Shi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2012-06-10       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles.

Authors:  Hai-Yan Zhu; Ya-Mei Xue; Ling-Yun Yang; Ling-Ying Jiang; Chao Ling; Xiao-Mei Tong; Song-Ying Zhang
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Cumulative live birth rate after two single frozen embryo transfers (eSFET) versus a double frozen embryo transfer (DFET) with cleavage stage embryos: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ma Luisa López Regalado; Ana Clavero; M Carmen Gonzalvo; María Serrano; Luis Martínez; Juan Mozas; Fernando Rodríguez-Serrano; Juan Fontes; Bárbara Romero; Jose A Castilla
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 4.  Female fertility: is it safe to "freeze?".

Authors:  Lu Zhang; Li-Ying Yan; Xu Zhi; Jie Yan; Jie Qiao
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 2.628

5.  Effect of embryo morphology and morphometrics on implantation of vitrified day 3 embryos after warming: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Elia Fernandez Gallardo; Carl Spiessens; Thomas D'Hooghe; Sophie Debrock
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 5.211

Review 6.  Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance.

Authors:  Laura Rienzi; Clarisa Gracia; Roberta Maggiulli; Andrew R LaBarbera; Daniel J Kaser; Filippo M Ubaldi; Sheryl Vanderpoel; Catherine Racowsky
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 15.610

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.