Literature DB >> 23744895

How does vitrification affect oocyte viability in oocyte donation cycles? A prospective study to compare outcomes achieved with fresh versus vitrified sibling oocytes.

M Solé1, J Santaló, M Boada, E Clua, I Rodríguez, F Martínez, B Coroleu, P N Barri, A Veiga.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: How does vitrification affect oocyte viability? SUMMARY ANSWER: Vitrification does not affect oocyte viability in oocyte donation cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Oocyte vitrification is performed routinely and successfully in IVF and oocyte donation programs. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a prospective study performed between June 2009 and February 2012 to compare ongoing pregnancy rates and other indices of viability between fresh and vitrified oocytes. A total of 99 donations with more than 16 oocytes (MII) in which oocytes were allocated both to a synchronous recipient (fresh oocytes) and to an asynchronous recipient (vitrified oocytes) were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: The participants were consenting couples (donors and recipients) from the oocyte donation program. On the day of retrieval, the oocytes allocated to the synchronous recipient were inseminated and those allocated for banking were denuded of cumulus and vitrified. Vitrified oocytes were microinjected with spermatozoa 2 h after warming. Embryo transfer was performed on Day 2 of development in both groups, and the remaining embryos were cryopreserved on Day 3. Clinical pregnancy was defined by a positive fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 989 oocytes were warmed and 85.6% survived. No significant differences were observed between fresh and vitrified oocytes: fertilization rate (80.7 versus 78.2%), ongoing embryo rate (71.0 versus 68.2%) or good-quality embryo rate (54.1 versus 49.8%). The mean number of embryos transferred was similar in both groups (1.82 ± 0.44 versus 1.90 ± 0.34). The implantation rate (33.3 versus 34.0%) and the multiple pregnancy rate (27.7 versus 20.8) were also similar between both groups (P > 0.05). The live birth rate per cycle was 38.4% in the recipients of fresh oocytes and 43.4% in the recipients of vitrified oocytes (P > 0.05). Eighty five frozen embryo transfers were also evaluated. Comparing embryos from fresh and vitrified oocytes there were no significant differences in the embryo survival rate (70.1 versus 65.8%), clinical pregnancy rate (40.8 versus 33.3%) or implantation rate (21.8 versus 26.8%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The oocytes were donated by healthy, young women (≤35 years) and these results cannot be extrapolated to other populations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: Outcomes obtained with vitrified oocytes are as good as with fresh oocytes and the use of vitrification can be extended to new applications, e.g. accumulation of oocytes from successive stimulations for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, for patients at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or in patients needing to preserve their fertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was done under the auspices of the Càtedra d'Investigació en Obstetrícia i Ginecologia of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Entities:  

Keywords:  frozen embryo transfer; live birth; ongoing embryos; oocyte donation; oocyte vitrification

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23744895     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  21 in total

1.  A comparison of live birth rates and perinatal outcomes between cryopreserved oocytes and cryopreserved embryos.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Ho; Irene Woo; Kristin Louie; Wael Salem; Sami I Jabara; Kristin A Bendikson; Richard J Paulson; Karine Chung
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Systematic review of fertility preservation options in transgender patients: a guide for plastic surgeons.

Authors:  Maria Yan; Samyd S Bustos; Doga Kuruoglu; Pedro Ciudad; Antonio J Forte; Esther A Kim; Gabriel Del Corral; Oscar J Manrique
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-04

3.  The efficiency of a donor-recipient program using infertile donors' egg cryo-banking: a Brazilian reality.

Authors:  Rita de Cássia Sávio Figueira; Amanda S Setti; Daniela P A F Braga; Assumpto Iaconelli; Edson Borges
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2014-06-22       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  [Causes of oocyte vitrification and its value in assisted reproductive technology].

Authors:  Jing Zhe; Jun Zhang; Shiling Chen; Weiqing Zhang; Chen Luo; Xingyu Zhou; Xin Chen; Zhuolin Qiu; Huixi Li; Xiaomin Wu
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2019-07-30

5.  Hydroxypropyl cellulose supplementation in vitrification solutions: a prospective study with donor oocytes.

Authors:  Miguel Gallardo; María Hebles; Beatriz Migueles; Mónica Dorado; Laura Aguilera; Mercedes González; Paloma Piqueras; Alejandro Lucas; Lorena Montero; Pascual Sánchez-Martín; Fernando Sánchez-Martín; Ramón Risco
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Cryopreserved oocyte versus fresh oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles, United States, 2013.

Authors:  Sara Crawford; Sheree L Boulet; Jennifer F Kawwass; Denise J Jamieson; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Vitrification of in vitro matured oocytes collected from surplus ovarian medulla tissue resulting from fertility preservation of ovarian cortex tissue.

Authors:  Huiqun Yin; Hong Jiang; Stine Gry Kristensen; Claus Yding Andersen
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  COH outcomes in breast cancer patients for fertility preservation: a comparison with the expected response by age.

Authors:  Elisa Malacarne; Marta Devesa; Francisca Martinez; Ignacio Rodriguez; Buenaventura Coroleu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Closed vitrification of human oocytes and blastocysts: outcomes from a series of clinical cases.

Authors:  Debra A Gook; Boon Choo; Harold Bourne; Kelly Lewis; David H Edgar
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 3.412

10.  Thirteen years' experience in fertility preservation for cancer patients after in vitro fertilization and in vitro maturation treatments.

Authors:  Helene Creux; Patricia Monnier; Weon-Young Son; William Buckett
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 3.412

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.