Literature DB >> 24794643

Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer.

Tyl H Taylor1, Jennifer L Patrick2, Susan A Gitlin3, J Michael Wilson2, Jack L Crain2, Darren K Griffin4.   

Abstract

Trophectoderm biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) has been shown to increase implantation and pregnancy rates. Some patients desire CCS on previously cryopreserved blastocysts, resulting in blastocysts that are thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified and then warmed again. The effect of two cryopreservation procedures and two thawing/warming procedures on outcomes has not been effectively studied. Cycles were divided into two groups: group 1 patients underwent a cryopreserved embryo transfer with euploid blastocysts that were vitrified and warmed once; group 2 patients had a cryopreserved embryo transfer of a euploid blastocyst that was cryopreserved, thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified and warmed. Groups 1 and 2 included 85 and 17 women aged 35.6 ± 3.9 and 35.3 ± 4.9 years, respectively (not significantly different). Blastocyst survival in group 1 (114/116, 98.3%) and survival of second warming in group 2 (21/24, 87.5%) was significantly different (P = 0.0354). There was no difference between biochemical (68.2% and 62.5%) and clinical (61.2% and 56.3%) pregnancy rates, implantation rate (58.4% and 52.4%) and live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (54.0% and 47.6%) between groups 1 and 2, respectively. Although it is unconventional to thaw/warm, biopsy, revitrify and rewarm blastocysts for cryopreserved embryo transfer, the results indicate that outcomes are not compromised. Trophectoderm biopsy and screening the embryos for chromosomal abnormalities has been reported to increase implantation and pregnancy rates. There is a category of patients requesting chromosomal screening on previously cryopreserved blastocysts. This scenario requires blastocysts to be thawed/warmed, biopsied, cryopreserved, and thawed/warmed again. The effect of double cryopreservation procedures and double thawing/warming procedures on pregnancy is unknown. Patients were divided into two groups, group 1 underwent a cryopreserved embryo transfer with a chromosomally normal blastocyst that was vitrified and warmed once and group 2 included patients that had a cryopreserved embryo transfer of a chromosomally normal blastocyst that was cryopreserved, thawed/warmed, biopsied, vitrified, and rewarmed. A total of 85 and 17 women aged 35.6 ± 3.9 and 35.3 ± 4.9 years were included in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The survival rate for group 1 (114 of 116, 98.3%) compared with the second warming for group 2 (21 of 24, 87.5%) was significantly higher. There was no difference between biochemical (68.2% and 62.5%), and clinical pregnancies (61.2% and 56.3%), implantation (58.4% and 52.4%), and live birth/ongoing rates (54.0% and 47.6%) between groups 1 and 2. Although it is unconventional to twice cryopreserve and twice thaw/warm a blastocyst, our results indicate that outcomes are not compromised.
Copyright © 2014 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IVF; aneuploidy; biopsy; blastocyst; vitrification; warming

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24794643     DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online        ISSN: 1472-6483            Impact factor:   3.828


  7 in total

1.  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 2.  Preparation of endometrium for frozen embryo replacement cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hakan Yarali; Mehtap Polat; Sezcan Mumusoglu; Irem Yarali; Gurkan Bozdag
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Accumulation of Cleavage-Stage Embryos by Vitrification may Compromise Embryonic Developmental Potential in Preimplantation Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Shun Xiong; Xiangwei Hao; Yang Gao; Lihong Wu; Junxia Liu; Jiang Wang; Jiahong Zhu; Jingyu Li; Dongyun Liu; Wei Han; Guoning Huang
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.060

4.  Live birth rate following a euploid blastocyst transfer is not affected by double vitrification and warming at cleavage or blastocyst stage.

Authors:  Efstathios Theodorou; Benjamin P Jones; Daniella F Cardenas Armas; Carleen Heath; Paul Serhal; Jara Ben-Nagi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-02-26       Impact factor: 3.357

5.  Cryopreservation Does Not Affect the Clinical Pregnancy Rate of Blastocysts Derived from Vitrified Oocytes.

Authors:  Hadi Ramadan; Tarita Pakrashi; Andrea R Thurman; Kimball O Pomeroy; Gerard Celia
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Transferring embryos with indeterminate PGD results: the ethical implications.

Authors:  Iris G Insogna; Elizabeth Ginsburg
Journal:  Fertil Res Pract       Date:  2016-02-01

7.  Factors associated with vitrification-warming survival in 6167 euploid blastocysts.

Authors:  Margeaux Oliva; Christine Briton-Jones; Dmitry Gounko; Joseph A Lee; Alan B Copperman; Lucky Sekhon
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-07-26       Impact factor: 3.357

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.