Lucky Sekhon1, Joseph A Lee2, Eric Flisser2, Alan B Copperman3, Daniel Stein3. 1. Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Klingenstein Pavilion 1176 Fifth Avenue 9th Floor, New York, New York, 10029, United States; Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York, 635 Madison Ave 10th Floor, New York, New York, 10022, United States. Electronic address: lsekhon@rmany.com. 2. Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York, 635 Madison Ave 10th Floor, New York, New York, 10022, United States. 3. Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Klingenstein Pavilion 1176 Fifth Avenue 9th Floor, New York, New York, 10029, United States; Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York, 635 Madison Ave 10th Floor, New York, New York, 10022, United States.
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION: Does vitrification and warming affect live birth rate, infant birth weight and timing of delivery? DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study comparing outcomes of donor oocyte recipient fresh (n = 25) versus vitrified (n = 86) euploid blastocyst transfers; donor oocyte recipient singleton live births from fresh (n = 100) versus vitrified (n = 102) single embryo transfers (SET); and autologous vitrified euploid SET (n = 1760) (cryostored 21-1671 days). RESULTS: Group 1: fresh and vitrified-warmed blastocysts had similar live birth (OR 1.7; 95% CI 0.5 to 5.9), implantation (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.2 to 3.9), clinical pregnancy (OR 3.4; 95% CI 0.9 to 13.0) and pregnancy loss (OR 1.2; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.4); group 2: low birth weight (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.1 to 1.6) and preterm delivery (0.99; 95% CI 0.4 to 2.3) rates were similar in fresh and vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers; group 3: cryostorage duration did not affect live birth (OR 1.0; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.0), implantation (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01), clinical pregnancy (OR 1.0; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.0]), pregnancy loss (OR 0.99; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.0), birth weight (β = -15.7) or gestational age at delivery (β = -0.996). CONCLUSIONS: Vitrification and cryostorage (up to 4 years) are safe and effective practices that do not significantly affect clinical outcome after embryo transfer.
RESEARCH QUESTION: Does vitrification and warming affect live birth rate, infant birth weight and timing of delivery? DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study comparing outcomes of donor oocyte recipient fresh (n = 25) versus vitrified (n = 86) euploid blastocyst transfers; donor oocyte recipient singleton live births from fresh (n = 100) versus vitrified (n = 102) single embryo transfers (SET); and autologous vitrified euploid SET (n = 1760) (cryostored 21-1671 days). RESULTS: Group 1: fresh and vitrified-warmed blastocysts had similar live birth (OR 1.7; 95% CI 0.5 to 5.9), implantation (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.2 to 3.9), clinical pregnancy (OR 3.4; 95% CI 0.9 to 13.0) and pregnancy loss (OR 1.2; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.4); group 2: low birth weight (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.1 to 1.6) and preterm delivery (0.99; 95% CI 0.4 to 2.3) rates were similar in fresh and vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers; group 3: cryostorage duration did not affect live birth (OR 1.0; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.0), implantation (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01), clinical pregnancy (OR 1.0; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.0]), pregnancy loss (OR 0.99; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.0), birth weight (β = -15.7) or gestational age at delivery (β = -0.996). CONCLUSIONS: Vitrification and cryostorage (up to 4 years) are safe and effective practices that do not significantly affect clinical outcome after embryo transfer.
Authors: Jenna Friedenthal; Carlos Hernandez-Nieto; Rose Marie Roth; Richard Slifkin; Dmitry Gounko; Joseph A Lee; Taraneh Nazem; Christine Briton-Jones; Alan Copperman Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 3.357