OBJECTIVE: To compare success rates of vitrified-warmed with fresh and frozen-thawed ETs DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Public fertility center. PATIENT(S): Cryopreserved- thawed/warmed ETs were included in this study. Fresh cycles, in which supernumerary embryos were cryopreserved, were set as the fresh control group. INTERVENTION(S): Supernumerary day 3 embryos were cryopreserved by slow-freezing or vitrification and transferred after thawing or warming. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Comparison of two cryopreservation techniques with respect to post-thaw survival of embryos, implantation and pregnancy rates, neonatal outcome, and congenital birth defects. RESULTS: A total of 962 fresh, 151 freezing-thawed and 300 vitrified-warmed cycles were included in this study. The survival and intact cell rates in the vitrification group were significantly higher compared with those in the slow freezing group (88.5 % vs 74.5 % and 86.6 % vs 64.0 %). The implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates of the vitrification group were similar to the fresh and significant higher than slow freezing group. There were no significant differences in mean gestational age, birth weight, stillbirth, birth defects and the prevalence of neonatal diseases among three groups. CONCLUSION: Vitrified-warmed ETs yield comparable outcomes with fresh ETs and is superior to frozen-thawed ETs regarding the survival rate and clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To compare success rates of vitrified-warmed with fresh and frozen-thawed ETs DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Public fertility center. PATIENT(S): Cryopreserved- thawed/warmed ETs were included in this study. Fresh cycles, in which supernumerary embryos were cryopreserved, were set as the fresh control group. INTERVENTION(S): Supernumerary day 3 embryos were cryopreserved by slow-freezing or vitrification and transferred after thawing or warming. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Comparison of two cryopreservation techniques with respect to post-thaw survival of embryos, implantation and pregnancy rates, neonatal outcome, and congenital birth defects. RESULTS: A total of 962 fresh, 151 freezing-thawed and 300 vitrified-warmed cycles were included in this study. The survival and intact cell rates in the vitrification group were significantly higher compared with those in the slow freezing group (88.5 % vs 74.5 % and 86.6 % vs 64.0 %). The implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates of the vitrification group were similar to the fresh and significant higher than slow freezing group. There were no significant differences in mean gestational age, birth weight, stillbirth, birth defects and the prevalence of neonatal diseases among three groups. CONCLUSION: Vitrified-warmed ETs yield comparable outcomes with fresh ETs and is superior to frozen-thawed ETs regarding the survival rate and clinical outcomes.
Authors: Bruce S Shapiro; Said T Daneshmand; Forest C Garner; Martha Aguirre; Cynthia Hudson; Shyni Thomas Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: H Saito; G M Ishida; T Kaneko; S Kawachiya; N Ohta; T Takahashi; T Saito; M Hiroi Journal: Gynecol Obstet Invest Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Kalliopi E Loutradi; Efstratios M Kolibianakis; Christos A Venetis; Evangelos G Papanikolaou; George Pados; Ioannis Bontis; Basil C Tarlatzis Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 7.329
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
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