Literature DB >> 27172399

Factors associated with birth outcomes from cryopreserved blastocysts: experience from 4,597 autologous transfers of 7,597 cryopreserved blastocysts.

Kevin S Richter1, Daniella K Ginsburg2, Sharon K Shipley3, Josh Lim3, Michael J Tucker3, James R Graham3, Michael J Levy3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with cryopreserved blastocyst transfer birth outcomes, including age, expansion time, cryopreservation protocol, cryodamage, and number of embryos transferred.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Private infertility practice. PATIENT(S): Cryopreserved blastocyst transfer patients from January 2003 to April 2012. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Birth per transfer and children per embryo. RESULT(S): Overall live birth per transfer was 32%, with 17% twin births and 0.3% triplets. Live birth per transfer was significantly higher for vitrification compared with slow-freeze (day 5 cryopreservation: 47% vs. 35%; day 6 cryopreservation: 46% vs. 24%), as was live born children per transferred embryo (39% vs. 29% for day 5; 36% vs. 18% for day 6). Birth rates declined only slightly with increasing age at cryopreservation through 37 years, followed by an increasingly rapid decline in success with increasing age thereafter. Live birth rates declined rapidly (49%-18% for vitrification and 37%-10% for slow-freeze) as the percentage of intact cells after cryopreservation decreased from 95%-100% to 70%-79%, with almost no births when the percentage of intact cells was <70%. Increasing numbers of embryos per transfer were associated with significant increase in live birth per transfer but significant decrease in children per transferred embryo. Birth rates were much lower for blastocysts with delayed expansion on day 7 (10% per transfer). CONCLUSION(S): Birth outcomes from cryopreserved blastocyst transfer are influenced by age, timing of expansion, cryopreservation protocol, visible cryodamage, and the number of embryos transferred. Vitrification substantially improves outcomes versus slow freezing.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cryopreservation; blastocyst; live birth; slow-freeze; vitrification

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27172399     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  10 in total

1.  Pregnancy rates for single embryo transfer (SET) of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts after cryopreservation by vitrification and slow freeze.

Authors:  Leah Kaye; Erica Anspach Will; Alison Bartolucci; John Nulsen; Claudio Benadiva; Lawrence Engmann
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Mathilde Bourdon; Khaled Pocate-Cheriet; Astri Finet de Bantel; Veronika Grzegorczyk-Martin; Aureli Amar Hoffet; Elisangela Arbo; Marine Poulain; Pietro Santulli
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  The Valuable Reference of Live Birth Rate in the Single Vitrified-Warmed BB/BC/CB Blastocyst Transfer: The Cleavage-Stage Embryo Quality and Embryo Development Speed.

Authors:  Xi Shen; Hui Long; Hongyuan Gao; Wenya Guo; Yating Xie; Di Chen; Yanyan Cong; Yun Wang; Dongying Li; Jiqiang Si; Leiwen Zhao; Qifeng Lyu; Yanping Kuang; Li Wang
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 4.566

4.  Toward embryo cryopreservation-on-a-chip: A standalone microfluidic platform for gradual loading of cryoprotectants to minimize cryoinjuries.

Authors:  Pouria Tirgar; Fatemeh Sarmadi; Mojgan Najafi; Parinaz Kazemi; Sina AzizMohseni; Samaneh Fayazi; Ghazaleh Zandi; Nikta Ziaie; Aida Shoushtari Zadeh Naseri; Allen Ehrlicher; Mojtaba Dashtizad
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.800

5.  Embryo quality, ploidy, and transfer outcomes in male versus female blastocysts.

Authors:  Christopher P Moutos; William G Kearns; Sarah E Farmer; Jon P Richards; Antonio F Saad; John R Crochet
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.357

6.  Should single embryo transfer be used in patients with any kind of infertility factor? Preliminary outcomes.

Authors:  Pedro Aa Monteleone; Paula Gmf Petersen; Pedro Fm Peregrino; Juliana Miorin; Alecsandra P Gomes; Mariana G Fujii; Hamilton de Martin; Tatiana Cs Bonetti; Sergio P Gonçalves
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2019-08-22

7.  Analysis of Biochemical and Clinical Pregnancy Loss Between Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer of Blastocysts and Day 3 Cleavage Embryos in Young Women: A Comprehensive Comparison.

Authors:  Xiuliang Dai; Tingting Gao; Xiyang Xia; Fang Cao; Chunmei Yu; Tianfu Li; Lingjun Li; Yufeng Wang; Li Chen
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 5.555

8.  Vitrification within a nanoliter volume: oocyte and embryo cryopreservation within a 3D photopolymerized device.

Authors:  Suliman H Yagoub; Megan Lim; Tiffany C Y Tan; Darren J X Chow; Kishan Dholakia; Brant C Gibson; Jeremy G Thompson; Kylie R Dunning
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 3.357

9.  Impact of Day 7 Blastocyst Transfer on Obstetric and Perinatal Outcome of Singletons Born After Vitrified-Warmed Embryo Transfer.

Authors:  Jiaan Huang; Xiaoyan Yang; Jiayi Wu; Yanping Kuang; Yun Wang
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 4.566

10.  Obstetric, Neonatal, and Clinical Outcomes of Day 6 vs. Day 5 Vitrified-Warmed Blastocyst Transfers: Retrospective Cohort Study With Propensity Score Matching.

Authors:  Dong Soo Park; Ji Won Kim; Eun Mi Chang; Woo Sik Lee; Tae Ki Yoon; Sang Woo Lyu
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 5.555

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.