N Kaartinen1, K Kananen2, H Huhtala3, S Keränen4, H Tinkanen5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Teiskontie 35, 33521, Tampere, Finland. noora.kaartinen@pshp.fi. 2. Infertility Clinic Ovumia, Biokatu 12, 33520, Tampere, Finland. 3. School of Health Sciences, Tampere University, T-Building, Medisiinarinkatu 3, 33520, Tampere, Finland. 4. Central Finland Central Hospital, Keskussairaalantie 19, 40620, Jyväskylä, Finland. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Teiskontie 35, 33521, Tampere, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to study the effect of the embryo freezing method on the birth weight of newborns from frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, and the pregnancy results of cleavage stage embryos cryopreserved by slow freezing or vitrification. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study undertaken in a University Hospital IVF unit using concurrently both the slow-freezing and the vitrification techniques. All frozen-thawed and vitrified-warmed day 2 and day 3 embryo transfers during the time period from 1 April 2009 to 31 November 2013 were included in the study. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant weight difference between newborns from vitrified or slow-frozen embryos (3588 vs 3670 g). A higher post-thaw viability rate was achieved after cryopreservation by the vitrification technique compared to the slow-freezing protocol (83.4 vs 61.4%). The miscarriage rate was lower in the vitrification group (15.7 vs 29.0%). The live birth rates were similar (19.5 vs 19.1%) in the slow-freezing and vitrification groups, respectively. Among vitrified embryos, 7.4 embryos needed to be thawed to produce one delivery; in the slow-freezing group, that number was 11.9. CONCLUSIONS: The freezing method has no impact on the weight of the newborn. With lower post-thaw survival rates and higher miscarriage rates, the slow-freezing cryopreservation protocol is inferior to the vitrification technique.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to study the effect of the embryo freezing method on the birth weight of newborns from frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, and the pregnancy results of cleavage stage embryos cryopreserved by slow freezing or vitrification. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study undertaken in a University Hospital IVF unit using concurrently both the slow-freezing and the vitrification techniques. All frozen-thawed and vitrified-warmed day 2 and day 3 embryo transfers during the time period from 1 April 2009 to 31 November 2013 were included in the study. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant weight difference between newborns from vitrified or slow-frozen embryos (3588 vs 3670 g). A higher post-thaw viability rate was achieved after cryopreservation by the vitrification technique compared to the slow-freezing protocol (83.4 vs 61.4%). The miscarriage rate was lower in the vitrification group (15.7 vs 29.0%). The live birth rates were similar (19.5 vs 19.1%) in the slow-freezing and vitrification groups, respectively. Among vitrified embryos, 7.4 embryos needed to be thawed to produce one delivery; in the slow-freezing group, that number was 11.9. CONCLUSIONS: The freezing method has no impact on the weight of the newborn. With lower post-thaw survival rates and higher miscarriage rates, the slow-freezing cryopreservation protocol is inferior to the vitrification technique.
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: 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: Julia F Litzky; Sheree L Boulet; Navid Esfandiari; Yujia Zhang; Dmitry M Kissin; Regan N Theiler; Carmen J Marsit Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 8.661
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