Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes of day 3 embryo transfer with vitrification using Cryoleaf: a 3-year follow-up study

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare success rates of vitrified-warmed with fresh and frozen-thawed ETs

Design

Retrospective.

Setting

Public fertility center.

Patient(s)

Cryopreserved- thawed/warmed ETs were included in this study. Fresh cycles, in which supernumerary embryos were cryopreserved, were set as the fresh control group.

Intervention(s)

Supernumerary day 3 embryos were cryopreserved by slow-freezing or vitrification and transferred after thawing or warming.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Comparison of two cryopreservation techniques with respect to post-thaw survival of embryos, implantation and pregnancy rates, neonatal outcome, and congenital birth defects.

Results

A total of 962 fresh, 151 freezing-thawed and 300 vitrified-warmed cycles were included in this study. The survival and intact cell rates in the vitrification group were significantly higher compared with those in the slow freezing group (88.5 % vs 74.5 % and 86.6 % vs 64.0 %). The implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates of the vitrification group were similar to the fresh and significant higher than slow freezing group. There were no significant differences in mean gestational age, birth weight, stillbirth, birth defects and the prevalence of neonatal diseases among three groups.

Conclusion

Vitrified-warmed ETs yield comparable outcomes with fresh ETs and is superior to frozen-thawed ETs regarding the survival rate and clinical outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. First baby born of frozen embryo. The New York Times; 1984.

  2. Chi HJ, Koo JJ, Kim MY, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos using ethylene glycol in controlled slow freezing. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2146–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Edgar DH, Archer J, McBain J, et al. Embryonic factors affecting outcome from single cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:718–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nagy ZP, Taylor T, Elliott T, et al. Removal of lysed blastomeres from frozen-thawed embryos improves implantation and pregnancy rates in frozen embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1606–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, et al. Developmental potential of fully intact and partially damaged cryopreserved embryos after laser-assisted removal of necrotic blastomeres and post-thaw culture selection. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:888–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salumets A, Suikkari AM, Makinen S, et al. Frozen embryo transfers: implications of clinical and embryological factors on the pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2368–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Salumets A, Tuuri T, Makinen S, et al. Effect of developmental stage of embryo at freezing on pregnancy outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1890–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:186–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vajta G, Kuwayama M. Improving cryopreservation systems. Theriogenology. 2006;65:236–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, et al. Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1513–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang CC, Lee TH, Chen SU, et al. Successful pregnancy following blastocyst cryopreservation using super-cooling ultra-rapid vitrification. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Ieda S, et al. Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:608–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liebermann J, Tucker MJ. Comparison of vitrification and conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Verheyen G, et al. Slow controlled-rate freezing of sequentially cultured human blastocysts: an evaluation of two freezing strategies. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2939–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zheng WT, Zhuang GL, Zhou CQ, et al. Comparison of the survival of human biopsied embryos after cryopreservation with four different methods using non-transferable embryos. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1615–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Liebermann J, Nawroth F, Isachenko V, et al. Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol Reprod. 2002;67:1671–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rama Raju GA, Jaya Prakash G, Murali Krishna K, et al. Neonatal outcome after vitrified day 3 embryo transfers: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:143–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Takahashi K, Mukaida T, Goto T, et al. Perinatal outcome of blastocyst transfer with vitrification using cryoloop: a 4-year follow-up study. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:88–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, et al. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:209–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liebermann J, Dietl J, Vanderzwalmen P, et al. Recent developments in human oocyte, embryo and blastocyst vitrification: where are we now? Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:623–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rall WF, Fahy GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at -196 degrees C by vitrification. Nature. 1985;313:573–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuwayama M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos: the Cryotop method. Theriogenology. 2007;67:73–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rama Raju GA, Haranath GB, Krishna KM, et al. Vitrification of human 8-cell embryos, a modified protocol for better pregnancy rates. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:434–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Al-Hasani S, Ozmen B, Koutlaki N, et al. Three years of routine vitrification of human zygotes: is it still fair to advocate slow-rate freezing? Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:288–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Desai N, Blackmon H, Szeptycki J, et al. Cryoloop vitrification of human day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: post-vitrification development, pregnancy outcomes and live births. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:208–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Li Y, Chen ZJ, Yang HJ, et al. Comparison of vitrification and slow-freezing of human day 3 cleavage stage embryos: post-vitrification development and pregnancy outcomes. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2007;42:753–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Saito H, Ishida GM, Kaneko T, et al. Application of vitrification to human embryo freezing. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2000;49:145–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Landuyt L, Verpoest W, Verheyen G, et al. Closed blastocyst vitrification of biopsied embryos: evaluation of 100 consecutive warming cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:316–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang X, Trokoudes KM, Pavlides C. Vitrification of biopsied embryos at cleavage, morula and blastocyst stage. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:526–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhu GJ, Jin L, Zhang HW, et al. Vitrification of human cleaved embryos in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2005;40:682–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, et al. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:347–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haouzi D, Assou S, Dechanet C, et al. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization alters endometrial receptivity in humans: protocol effects. Biol Reprod. 2010;82:679–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, et al. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1436–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:516–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S, et al. Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles–time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1691–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bielanski A, Nadin-Davis S, Sapp T, et al. Viral contamination of embryos cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen. Cryobiology. 2000;40:110–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Tedder RS, Zuckerman MA, Goldstone AH, et al. Hepatitis B transmission from contaminated cryopreservation tank. Lancet. 1995;346:137–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of gynecology, the first affiliated hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zheng Zhou, 450052, China

    Xing-ling Wang & Hui-rong Shi

  2. Cork Fertility Centre, Fernhurst House, College Road, Cork, Ireland

    Xiao Zhang

  3. Reproductive Medicine Center, the third affiliated hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zheng Zhou, 450052, China

    Xing-ling Wang, Yao-qin Qin & Da-yong Hao

Authors
  1. Xing-ling Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yao-qin Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Da-yong Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hui-rong Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui-rong Shi.

Additional information

Capsule Two embryo cryopreservation techniques were compared regarding survival and clinical outcomes. The vitrified-warmed ET yields comparable outcomes with the fresh ET and is superior to the frozen-thawed ET.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, Xl., Zhang, X., Qin, Yq. et al. Outcomes of day 3 embryo transfer with vitrification using Cryoleaf: a 3-year follow-up study. J Assist Reprod Genet 29, 883–889 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-012-9814-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-012-9814-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation