Aila Coello1, Pilar Campos1, José Remohí1, Marcos Meseguer1, Ana Cobo2. 1. Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad (IVI), University of Valencia, Pl. Policía Local 3, Valencia, Spain. 2. Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad (IVI), University of Valencia, Pl. Policía Local 3, Valencia, Spain. ana.cobo@ivi.es.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether the new formulation of vitrification solutions containing a combination of hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) and trehalose does not affect outcomes in comparison with using conventional solutions made of serum substitute supplement (SSS) and sucrose. METHODS: Ovum donation cycles were retrospectively compared regarding the solution used for vitrification and warming of human oocytes. The analysis included 218 cycles (N = 2532 oocytes) in the study group (HPC + trehalose) and 214 cycles (N = 2353 oocytes) in the control group (SSS + sucrose). RESULTS: No statistical differences were found in ovarian stimulation parameters and baseline characteristics of donors and recipients. The survival rate was 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 89.8-92.9) in the HPC + trehalose group vs. 92.1% (95% CI = 90.4-93.7) in the SSS + sucrose group (NS). The implantation rate (42.8%, 95% CI = 37.7-47.9 vs. 41.2%, 95% CI = 36.0-46.4), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer (60.7%, 95% CI = 53.9-67.5 vs. 56.4%, 95% CI = 49.3-63.5), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per transfer (48.5%, 95% CI = 41.5-55.5 vs. 46.3%, 95% CI = 39.2-53.4) were similar for patients who received either HPC + trehalose-vitrified oocytes or SSS + sucrose-vitrified oocytes. Statistical differences were found when analyzing blastocyst rate both per injected oocyte (30.2%, 95% CI = 28.3-32.1 vs. 24.1%, 95% CI = 22.3-25.9) and per fertilized oocyte (40.8%, 95%CI = 38.5-43.1 vs. 33.2%, 95% CI = 30.8-35.5) (P < 0.0001). Delivery rate was comparable between groups (37.2%, 95% CI = 30.8-46.6 vs. 36.9%, 95% CI = 30.4-43.4; NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that HPC and trehalose are suitable and safe substitutes for serum and sucrose. Therefore, the new commercial media can be used efficiently in the vitrification of human oocytes avoiding viral and endotoxin contamination risk.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether the new formulation of vitrification solutions containing a combination of hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) and trehalose does not affect outcomes in comparison with using conventional solutions made of serum substitute supplement (SSS) and sucrose. METHODS: Ovum donation cycles were retrospectively compared regarding the solution used for vitrification and warming of human oocytes. The analysis included 218 cycles (N = 2532 oocytes) in the study group (HPC + trehalose) and 214 cycles (N = 2353 oocytes) in the control group (SSS + sucrose). RESULTS: No statistical differences were found in ovarian stimulation parameters and baseline characteristics of donors and recipients. The survival rate was 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 89.8-92.9) in the HPC + trehalose group vs. 92.1% (95% CI = 90.4-93.7) in the SSS + sucrose group (NS). The implantation rate (42.8%, 95% CI = 37.7-47.9 vs. 41.2%, 95% CI = 36.0-46.4), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer (60.7%, 95% CI = 53.9-67.5 vs. 56.4%, 95% CI = 49.3-63.5), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per transfer (48.5%, 95% CI = 41.5-55.5 vs. 46.3%, 95% CI = 39.2-53.4) were similar for patients who received either HPC + trehalose-vitrified oocytes or SSS + sucrose-vitrified oocytes. Statistical differences were found when analyzing blastocyst rate both per injected oocyte (30.2%, 95% CI = 28.3-32.1 vs. 24.1%, 95% CI = 22.3-25.9) and per fertilized oocyte (40.8%, 95%CI = 38.5-43.1 vs. 33.2%, 95% CI = 30.8-35.5) (P < 0.0001). Delivery rate was comparable between groups (37.2%, 95% CI = 30.8-46.6 vs. 36.9%, 95% CI = 30.4-43.4; NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that HPC and trehalose are suitable and safe substitutes for serum and sucrose. Therefore, the new commercial media can be used efficiently in the vitrification of human oocytes avoiding viral and endotoxin contamination risk.
Authors: Xiao Bing Zhang; Karen Li; Kwai Heung Yau; Kam Sze Tsang; Tai Fai Fok; Chi Kong Li; Shuk Man Lee; Patrick Man Pan Yuen Journal: Transfusion Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.157
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: Jason R Herrick; Sandeep Rajput; Rolando Pasquariello; Alison Ermisch; Nicolas Santiquet; William B Schoolcraft; Rebecca L Krisher Journal: Reprod Fertil Date: 2020-12-23
Authors: L Parmegiani; K H Beilby; A Arnone; S Bernardi; A M Maccarini; E Nardi; G E Cognigni; M Filicori Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.412