Efstathios Theodorou1, Benjamin P Jones2, Daniella F Cardenas Armas3, Carleen Heath3, Paul Serhal3, Jara Ben-Nagi3,4. 1. The Centre for Reproductive & Genetic Health (CRGH), Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5QS, UK. stathis.theodorou@crgh.co.uk. 2. Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, W12 0HS, UK. 3. The Centre for Reproductive & Genetic Health (CRGH), Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5QS, UK. 4. Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare reproductive outcomes following a euploid embryo transfer, between those embryos vitrified-warmed twice to those vitrified-warmed once. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 694 single euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). For cycles in group 1 (N = 451), embryos were biopsied for PGT-A at blastocyst stage and vitrified. For cycles in group 2 (N = 146), embryos were vitrified at blastocyst stage, before being warmed and biopsied for PGT-A and vitrified again. For cycles in group 3 (N = 97), embryos were vitrified on day-3, before being warmed, cultured to day-5 and biopsied for PGT-A and re-vitrified. RESULTS: The pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and livebirth rate in group 2 were not statistically different to group 1 (pregnancy rate, adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.62-1.91; clinical pregnancy, aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58-1.37; live birth rate, aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.28). There was also no significant difference between group 3 and group 1, with similar pregnancy rate (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 0.74-1.99), clinical pregnancy rate (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75-1.96) and live birth rate (aOR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.73-1.80). There was no significant difference in miscarriage rates between all three groups. The age at the oocyte collection, embryo quality and day of biopsy were associated with pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and live birth rate. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that vitrifying and warming embryos twice at blastocyst or at cleavage and then blastocyst stage, can lead to similar reproductive outcomes to embryos vitrified-warmed once, after a single euploid embryo transfer.
PURPOSE: To compare reproductive outcomes following a euploid embryo transfer, between those embryos vitrified-warmed twice to those vitrified-warmed once. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 694 single euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). For cycles in group 1 (N = 451), embryos were biopsied for PGT-A at blastocyst stage and vitrified. For cycles in group 2 (N = 146), embryos were vitrified at blastocyst stage, before being warmed and biopsied for PGT-A and vitrified again. For cycles in group 3 (N = 97), embryos were vitrified on day-3, before being warmed, cultured to day-5 and biopsied for PGT-A and re-vitrified. RESULTS: The pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and livebirth rate in group 2 were not statistically different to group 1 (pregnancy rate, adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.62-1.91; clinical pregnancy, aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58-1.37; live birth rate, aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.28). There was also no significant difference between group 3 and group 1, with similar pregnancy rate (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 0.74-1.99), clinical pregnancy rate (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75-1.96) and live birth rate (aOR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.73-1.80). There was no significant difference in miscarriage rates between all three groups. The age at the oocyte collection, embryo quality and day of biopsy were associated with pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and live birth rate. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that vitrifying and warming embryos twice at blastocyst or at cleavage and then blastocyst stage, can lead to similar reproductive outcomes to embryos vitrified-warmed once, after a single euploid embryo transfer.
Authors: José Bellver; Ernesto Bosch; Juan José Espinós; Francisco Fabregues; Juan Fontes; Juan García-Velasco; Joaquín Llácer; Antonio Requena; Miguel Angel Checa Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Ashley Aluko; Denis A Vaughan; Anna M Modest; Alan S Penzias; Michele R Hacker; Kim Thornton; Denny Sakkas Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 3.828