BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare two methods of cryopreservation for the cleavage-stage human embryo: slow freezing and vitrification. METHODS: A total of 466 Day 3 embryos, donated with consent, underwent cryopreservation by either slow freezing in straws or vitrification using the cryoloop. The vitrification procedure did not include dimethyl sulfoxide, but rather employed ethylene glycol and 1,2-propanediol as the cryoprotectants. Survival, embryonic metabolism and subsequent development to the blastocyst were used to determine the efficacy of the two procedures. RESULTS: Significantly, more embryos survived the vitrification procedure (222/234, 94.8%) than slow freezing (206/232, 88.7%; P < 0.05). Consistent with this observation, pyruvate uptake was significantly greater in the vitrification group, reflecting a higher metabolic rate. Development to the blastocyst was also higher following vitrification (134/222, 60.3%) than following freezing (106/206, 49.5%; P < 0.05). In a separate cohort of 73 patients who had their supernumerary embryos cyropreserved with vitrification, the resultingimplantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate were 30 and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of metabolism revealed that vitrification had less impact on the metabolic rate of the embryo than freezing, which was reflected in higher survival rate and subsequent development in vitro. Excellent pregnancy outcomes followed the warming and transfer of vitrified cleavage-stage embryos. These data provide further evidence that vitrification imparts less trauma to cells and is, therefore, a more effective means of cryopreserving the human embryo than conventional slow freezing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00608010.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare two methods of cryopreservation for the cleavage-stage human embryo: slow freezing and vitrification. METHODS: A total of 466 Day 3 embryos, donated with consent, underwent cryopreservation by either slow freezing in straws or vitrification using the cryoloop. The vitrification procedure did not include dimethyl sulfoxide, but rather employed ethylene glycol and 1,2-propanediol as the cryoprotectants. Survival, embryonic metabolism and subsequent development to the blastocyst were used to determine the efficacy of the two procedures. RESULTS: Significantly, more embryos survived the vitrification procedure (222/234, 94.8%) than slow freezing (206/232, 88.7%; P < 0.05). Consistent with this observation, pyruvate uptake was significantly greater in the vitrification group, reflecting a higher metabolic rate. Development to the blastocyst was also higher following vitrification (134/222, 60.3%) than following freezing (106/206, 49.5%; P < 0.05). In a separate cohort of 73 patients who had their supernumerary embryos cyropreserved with vitrification, the resulting implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate were 30 and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of metabolism revealed that vitrification had less impact on the metabolic rate of the embryo than freezing, which was reflected in higher survival rate and subsequent development in vitro. Excellent pregnancy outcomes followed the warming and transfer of vitrified cleavage-stage embryos. These data provide further evidence that vitrification imparts less trauma to cells and is, therefore, a more effective means of cryopreserving the human embryo than conventional slow freezing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00608010.
Authors: Fatih Adanacıoğlu; Zeynep Gözde Tokat; Dürdane Büyükfidan; Hanifi M Özgül; Ferhat I Urunsak; Selahittin Çayan; Turan M Çetin Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2019-12-01