Ana Cobo1, Nicolás Garrido2, Antonio Pellicer2, José Remohí2. 1. IVI-Valencia, Institut Universitari IVI, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: ana.cobo@ivi.es. 2. IVI-Valencia, Institut Universitari IVI, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical outcomes achieved after 6 years' experience in ovum donation conducted with vitrified oocytes; to attempt to find predictors of survival; and to provide information about the probability of having a baby according to the number of oocytes consumed. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Private university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center. PATIENT(S): Recipients of vitrified oocytes (January 2007-March 2013), including all the warming procedures (n = 3,610) and all the donations made during the same period (n = 3,467). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Survival rate per warming procedure, cumulative delivery rates (CDR) per single donation cycle, oocyte-to-baby rate, and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte consumed. RESULT(S): Oocyte survival rate was 90.4%. It was not possible to develop a predictive model for survival owing to the lack of prognostic value of the studied variables. Implantation, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates per donation cycle were 39.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.8-40.5), 48.4% (95% CI, 46.7-50.1), and 39.9% (95% CI, 38.3-41.5), respectively. Statistical differences were found when comparing blastocysts versus day 3 ETs (42.5%; 95% CI, 40.4-45.2 vs. 37.5%; 95% CI, 35.3-39.7 ongoing pregnancy rate). The CDR/donation cycle, including cryotransfers, was 78.8% (95% CI, 73.5-84.1). The oocyte-to-baby rate was 6.5%. CLBR increased progressively according to the number of oocytes consumed. CONCLUSION(S): We provide detailed information about the high efficiency of using vitrified/warmed oocytes. There is currently no way of estimating donors' oocytes survival when considering baseline characteristics, storage time, or controlled ovarian stimulation parameters. The probability of achieving a baby using vitrified oocytes increases progressively with the number of oocytes consumed.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical outcomes achieved after 6 years' experience in ovum donation conducted with vitrified oocytes; to attempt to find predictors of survival; and to provide information about the probability of having a baby according to the number of oocytes consumed. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Private university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center. PATIENT(S): Recipients of vitrified oocytes (January 2007-March 2013), including all the warming procedures (n = 3,610) and all the donations made during the same period (n = 3,467). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Survival rate per warming procedure, cumulative delivery rates (CDR) per single donation cycle, oocyte-to-baby rate, and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte consumed. RESULT(S): Oocyte survival rate was 90.4%. It was not possible to develop a predictive model for survival owing to the lack of prognostic value of the studied variables. Implantation, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates per donation cycle were 39.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.8-40.5), 48.4% (95% CI, 46.7-50.1), and 39.9% (95% CI, 38.3-41.5), respectively. Statistical differences were found when comparing blastocysts versus day 3 ETs (42.5%; 95% CI, 40.4-45.2 vs. 37.5%; 95% CI, 35.3-39.7 ongoing pregnancy rate). The CDR/donation cycle, including cryotransfers, was 78.8% (95% CI, 73.5-84.1). The oocyte-to-baby rate was 6.5%. CLBR increased progressively according to the number of oocytes consumed. CONCLUSION(S): We provide detailed information about the high efficiency of using vitrified/warmed oocytes. There is currently no way of estimating donors' oocytes survival when considering baseline characteristics, storage time, or controlled ovarian stimulation parameters. The probability of achieving a baby using vitrified oocytes increases progressively with the number of oocytes consumed.
Authors: Lodovico Parmegiani; M G Minasi; A Arnone; V Casciani; G E Cognigni; R Viñoles; M T Varricchio; L A Quintero; E Greco; M Filicori Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2020-05-03 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Paula M A Cerialle; Carlos G Almodin; Moacir R M Radaelli; Vânia C Minguetti-Câmara; Michelle C Souza; Carlos A M Oliveira; Antonio J Gonçalves Journal: JBRA Assist Reprod Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Sarah M Capelouto; Audrey J Gaskins; Zsolt Peter Nagy; Daniel B Shapiro; Jessica B Spencer; Heather S Hipp Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: María Gil Juliá; Irene Hervás; Ana Navarro-Gómez Lechón; Fernando Quintana; David Amorós; Alberto Pacheco; Cristina González-Ravina; Rocío Rivera-Egea; Nicolás Garrido Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2021-05-12