| Literature DB >> 23406718 |
Cassie T Wang1, Lifeng Liang, Craig Witz, Dan Williams, Jason Griffith, Josh Skorupski, Ghassan Haddad, Jimmy Gill, Weihua Wang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful egg cryopreservation has many potential benefits to a variety of patients. However, a superior standard protocol describing all aspects of oocyte cryopreservation has not yet been identified. Oocyte cryopreservation is still a technical challenge for many infertility clinics. To maintain satisfactory clinical outcomes, there is a need to develop an easy to use, yet efficient laboratory protocol. The present study was designed to examine if human embryos resulting from eggs frozen with an optimized vitrification protocol have similar developmental competence as those from fresh eggs.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23406718 PMCID: PMC3577428 DOI: 10.1186/1757-2215-6-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
Figure 1Schematic diagram for egg vitrification used in the study. A 20 μl of basic solution (BS) drop without CPAs and three 20 μl drops of equilibration solution (ES) are made in a cover of a 60 mm culture dish (1). Eggs are placed in the BS for 1 minute and then merged to 1 drop of ES using a transfer pipette for 2 minutes (2). The second ES drop is merged to the solution using the same transfer pipette for 2 minutes (3). Eggs are transferred from the merged solution to the third drop of ES for 5 minutes (4). When the eggs are in the third drop of ES, three 20 μl drops of vitrification solution (VS) are made in the same culture dish (4). Eggs are transferred to VS drop 1 (5), then to VS drop 2 (6), and finally to VS drop 3 (7). Eggs are remained in each drop for 10–20 seconds. The equilibrated eggs are finally loaded to the tip of the vitrification straw before the time reaches 90 seconds (8). Vitrification straw is inserted to cooled protective straw inside liquid nitrogen when the time reaches 90 seconds and the top end of the protective straw is sealed (9).
Clinical summary of warming cycles of vitrified donor eggs*
| No. of cycles | 20 | 23 | NA |
| Mean age of donors | 28.2±1.7 | 25.6±1.8 | >0.05 |
| Mean age of recipients | 42.4±6.0 | 40.2±4.2 | >0.05 |
| Endometrium thickness (mm) | 9.7±1.2 | 9.4±1.7 | >0.05 |
| No. of eggs/warming cycle | 7.6±1.5 | 7.9±0.9 | >0.05 |
| Total No. of eggs warmed | 151 | 183 | NA |
| No. of eggs survived (%) | 142 (94.0) | 174 (95.1) | >0.05 |
| No. of eggs fertilized (%) | 114 (80.3) | 145 (83.3) | >0.05 |
| No. of zygotes cleaved (%) | 98 (86.0) | 132 (91.0) | >0.05 |
| No. of blastocysts (%) | 26 (26.5) | 67 (50.8) | <0.001 |
| No. of clinical pregnancy (%) | 9 (45.0) | 15 (65.2) | >0.05 |
| No. of ongoing pregnancy or delivery (%) | 8 (40.0) | 13 (56.5) | >0.05 |
| Total No. of embryos transferred | 39 | 44 | NA |
| Mean No. of embryos transferred | 1.95±0.51 | 1.91±0.29 | >0.05 |
| No. of embryos implanted (%) | 12 (30.8) | 20 (45.5) | >0.05 |
* Eggs from different donors were used in Groups A and B.
Summary of warming cycles of frozen donor eggs with or without blastocyst transfer
| Embryos for transfer | with blastocyst(s) | without blastocyst | with blastocyst(s) | without blastocyst |
| No. of transfers | 12 | 8 | 20 | 3 |
| % in the group | 60 | 40 | 87 | 13 |
| Mean age of recipients | 44.9±5.1 | 38.5±5.3 | 40.6±4.1 | 37.7±4.9 |
| Total No. of embryos transferred | 24 | 15 | 38 | 6 |
| Mean No. of embryos transferred | 2.0±0.0 | 1.9±0.8 | 1.9±0.3 | 2.0±0.0 |
| No. of clinical pregnancy (%) | 7 (58.3) | 2 (25.0) | 14 (70.0) | 1 (33.3) |
| No. of embryos implanted (%) | 10 (41.6) | 2 (13.3) | 19 (50.0) | 1 (16.7) |
*Data from same patients showed in Table 1 was analyzed.
Summary of cycles of frozen eggs vs fresh eggs from 12 same donors
| No. of cycles | 19 | 20 | NA |
| Mean age of recipients | 40.1±4.4 | 42.1±5.5 | >0.05 |
| No. of eggs/warming cycle | 7.7±0.7 | 13.2±7.5 | >0.05 |
| Total No. of eggs warmed or used | 147 | 263 | NA |
| No. of eggs survived (%) | 140 (95.2) | NA | NA |
| No. of eggs fertilized (%) | 121 (86.4) | 212 (80.6) | >0.05 |
| No. of zygotes cleaved (%) | 112 (92.6) | 211 (99.5) | <0.05 |
| No. of blastocysts (%) | 56 (50.0) | 125 (59.2) | >0.05 |
| No. of clinical pregnancy (%) | 12 (63.2) | 12 (60.0) | >0.05 |
| No. of ongoing pregnancy or delivery (%) | 10 (52.6) | 11 (55.0) | >0.05 |
| Total No. of embryos transferred | 36 | 38 | NA |
| Mean No. of embryos transferred | 1.9±0.3 | 1.9±0.6 | >0.05 |
| No. of embryos implanted (%) | 15 (41.7) | 17 (44.7) | >0.05 |
*All eggs were vitrified with the long protocol.
Figure 2Direct comparison of fresh eggs and frozen eggs from 12 individual donors. There are no statistical significant differences in the blastocyst development among 12 donors between fresh and frozen eggs, in which 7 donors (marked by stars) had more or equal blastocyst development rates as compared with their fresh eggs (A). Up to 5 recipients received eggs from the same donor and the numbers of cycles with frozen and fresh eggs are shown in B, and the numbers of pregnant recipients from each donor are shown in C. Long protocol was used to freeze the eggs and data was from the same patients as shown in Table 3.
Summary of egg vitrification and warming in the non-donor patients *
| 1 | 39 | 6/7 | 6 | 4 | Blast x2 | No | No | 0 |
| 2 | 30 | 4/4 | 3 | 3 | Blast x2 | Yes | Yes | 1 |
| 3 | 39 | 9/10 | 6 | 5 | Blast x2 (2)** | Yes | Yes | 1 |
| 4 | 34 | 10/10 | 8 | 8 | Blast x2 | Yes | No | 1 |
| 5 | 36 | 4/4 | 4 | 4 | Blast x2 | Yes | Yes | 1 |
| 6 | 29 | 8/8 | 7 | 7 | Blast x2 (1)** | Yes | Yes | 2 |
| Total | 41/43 | 34 | 31 | 13 (15)*** | 5 | 4 | 6 | |
| % | 95.3 | 82.9 | 91.2 | 48.4 | 83.3 | 66.7 | 46.2 | |
*Eggs were vitrified with the long protocol.
**Numbers in the parentheses are the spare blastocysts for cryopreservation.
***Number in the parentheses is the total number of blastocysts (transferred and cryopreserved).