Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2/2014

Open Access 01-02-2014 | Embryo Biology

A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos

Authors: Giovanna Fasano, Nicolas Fontenelle, Anne-Sophie Vannin, Jamila Biramane, Fabienne Devreker, Yvon Englert, Anne Delbaere

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare two different vitrification methods to slow freezing method for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos. Design: Prospective randomised trial. Setting: University assisted reproduction centre. Patient(s): 568 patients (mean age 33.4 ± 5.2) from April 2009 to April 2011.

Methods

1798 supernumerary good-quality cleavage stage embryos in 645 IVF cycles intended to be cryopreserved were randomly allocated to three groups: slow freezing, vitrification with the Irvine® method, vitrification with the Vitrolife® method. Main Outcome Measure(s): Embryo survival and cleavage rates, implantation rate.

Results

A total of 1055 embryos were warmed, 836 (79.2 %) survived and 676 were finally transferred (64.1 %). Post-warming embryos survival rate was significantly higher after vitrification (Irvine: 89.4 %; Vitrolife: 87.6 %) than after slow freezing (63.8 %) (p < 0.001). No differences in survival rates were observed between the two vitrification methods, but a significant higher cleavage rate was observed using Irvine compared to Vitrolife method (p < 0.05). Implantation rate (IR) per embryo replaced and per embryo warmed were respectively 15.8 % (41/259) and 12.4 % (41/330) for Irvine, 17.0 % (40/235) and 12.1 % (40/330) for Vitrolife, 21.4 % (39/182) and 9.9 % (39/395) for slow-freezing (NS).

Conclusions

Both vitrification methods (Irvine and Vitrolife) are more efficient than slow freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos in terms of post-warming survival rate. No significant difference in the implantation rate was observed between the three cryopreservation methods.
Literature
1.
Wennerholm WB. Cryopreservation of embryos and oocytes: obstetric outcome and health in children. Human Reprod. 2000;15:18–25.CrossRef
2.
Anderson AR, Wilkinson SS, Price S, Crain JL. Reduction of high orders multiples in frozen embryo transfers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:402–5.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Leniaud L, Poncelet C, Porcher R, Martin-Pont B, Cédrin-Durnerin I, Hugues JN, et al. Prospective evaluation of elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization: a two-year French hospital experience. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2008;36:159–65.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Veleva Z, Karinen P, Tomás C, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI. Human Reprod. 2009;24:1632–9.CrossRef
5.
Min JK, Hughes E, Young D, Gysler M, Hemmings R, Cheung AP, et al. Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32:363–77.PubMed
6.
D’Angelo A, Amso N. Embryo freezing for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2787–94.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fitzmaurice GJ, Boylan C, McClure N. Are pregnancy rates compromised following embryo freezing to prevent OHSS? Ulster Med J. 2008;77:164–7.PubMedCentralPubMed
8.
Gera PS, Tatpati LL, Allemand MC, Wentworth MA, Coddington CC. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: steps to maximize success and minimize effect for assisted reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:173–8.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Wright KP, Guibert J, Weitzen S, Davy C, Fauque P, Olivennes F. Artificial versus stimulated cycles for endometrial preparation prior to frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:321–5.PubMedCrossRef
10.
El-Toukhy T, Coomarasamy A, Khairy M, Sunkara K, Seed P, Khalaf Y, et al. The relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of medicated frozen embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:832–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305:707–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Le Lannou D, Griveau JF, Laurent MC, Gueho A, Veron E, Morcel K. Contribution of embryo cryopreservation to elective single embryo transfer in IVF-ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:368–75.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Lundin K, Bergh C. Cumulative impact of adding frozen-thawed cycles to single versus double fresh embryo transfers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15:76–82.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fauque P, Jouannet P, Davy C, Guibert J, Viallon V, Epelboin S, et al. Cumulative results including obstetrical and neonatal outcome of fresh and frozen-thawed cycles in elective single versus double fresh embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:927–35.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple births after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:936–45.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:186–93.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which is better? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:270–4.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Abdelhafez FF, Desai N, Abou-setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:209–22.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Rall WF, Meyer TK. Zona fracture damage and its avoidance during the cryopreservation of mammalian embryos. Theriogenology. 1989;31:683–92.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Smith GD, Silva E, Silva CA. Developmental consequences of cryopreservation of mammalian oocytes and embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2004;9:171–8.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Choi DH, Chung HM, Lim JM, Ko JJ, Yoon TK, Cha KY. Pregnancy and delivery of healthy infants developed from vitrified blastocysts in an IVF-ET program. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:838–9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Mukaida T, Nakamura S, Tomiyama T, Wada S, Oka C, Kasai M, et al. Vitrification of human blastocysts using cryoloops: clinical outcome of 233 cycles. Human Reprod. 2003;18:384–91.CrossRef
23.
Huang CC, Lee TH, Chen SU, Chen HH, Cheng TC, Liu CH, et al. Successful pregnancy following blastocyst cryopreservation using super-rapid ultra-rapid vitrification. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:122–8.PubMedCrossRef
24.
El-Danasouri I, Selman HA. Successful pregnancy and deliveries after a simple vitrification protocol for day 3 human embryos. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:400–2.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Desai N, Blackmon H, Goldfarb DK. Cryoloop vitrification of human day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: post-vitrification development, pregnancy outcomes and live births. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:434–7.CrossRef
26.
Wood MJ, Mollison J, Harrild K, Ferguson E, McKay T, Srikantharajah A, et al. A pragmatic RCT of conventional versus increased concentration sucrose in freezing and thawing solutions for human embryos. Human Reprod. 2011;26(8):1987–96.CrossRef
27.
Edgar DH, Karani J, Gook DA. Increasing dehydration of human cleavage-stage embryos prior to slow cooling significantly increases cryosurvival. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(4):521–5.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Rama Raju GA, Haranath GB, Krishna KM, Prakash GJ, Madan K. Vitrification of human 8-cell embryos, a modified protocol for better pregnancy rates. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:434–7.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomised controlled study of human day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1976–82.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Mavaghar B. 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.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 1987;2:705–8.PubMed
32.
Devreker F, Pogonici E, De Maertelaer V, Revelard P, Van den Bergh M, Englert Y. Selection of good embryos for transfer depends on embryo cohort size: implications for the ‘mild ovarian stimulation’ debate. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:3002–8.PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Reed ML, Lane M, Gardner DK, Jensen NL, Thompson J. Vitrification of human blastocysts using the cryoloop method: successful clinical application and birth of offspring. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19:304–6.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Vanderzwalmen P, Bertin G, Debauche C, Standaert V, Bollen N, van Roosendaal E, et al. Vitrification of human blastocysts with the Hemi-Straw carrier: application of assisted hatching after thawing. Human Reprod. 2003;18:1504–11.CrossRef
36.
Kuwamana M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos: the Cryotop method. Theriogenology. 2006;67:73–80.CrossRef
37.
Vajta AG, Nagy ZP. Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:779–96.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Kuleshova L, Lopata A. Vitrification can be more favourable than slow cooling. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:449–54.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Kasai M, Mukaida T. Cryopreservation of animal and human embryos by vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;9:164–70.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Kartberg AJ, Hambiliki F, Arvidsson T, Stavreus-Evers A, Svalander P. Vitrification with DMSO protects embryo membrane integrity better than solutions without DMSO. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:378–84.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Cobo A, de Los Santos MJ, Castellò D, Gámiz P, Campos P, Remohí J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1138–46.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Bielanki A, Nadin-Davis S, Sapp T, Lutze-Wallace C. Viral contamination of embryos cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen. Cryobiology. 2000;40:110–6.CrossRef
43.
Bielanski A, Bergeron H, Lau PCK, Devenish J. Microbial contamination of embryos and semen during long-term banking in liquid nitrogen. Cryobiology. 2003;46:146–52.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Ieda S, Kato O. Comparison of opened closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and elimination of potential contamination. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:608–14.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Camus A, Clairaz P, Ersham A, Van Kappel AL, Savic G, Staub C. The comparison of the process of five different vitrification devices. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2006;34:737–45.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Van Landuyt L, Stoop D, Verheyen G, Verpoest W, Camus M, Van de Velde H, et al. Outcome of closed blastocyst vitrification in relation to blastocyst quality: evaluation of 759 warming cycles in a single-embryo transfer policy. Human Reprod. 2011;26:527–34.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos
Authors
Giovanna Fasano
Nicolas Fontenelle
Anne-Sophie Vannin
Jamila Biramane
Fabienne Devreker
Yvon Englert
Anne Delbaere
Publication date
01-02-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0145-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2/2014 Go to the issue

Gamete Biology

Are zona pellucida genes involved in recurrent oocyte lysis observed during in vitro fertilization?

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

A new treatment to avoid severe ovarian hyperstimulation utilizing insights from in vitro maturation therapy

Genetics

Variants in DPF3 and DSCAML1 are associated with sperm morphology

Genetics

The association of arylendosulfatase 1 (SULF1) gene polymorphism with recurrent miscarriage

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Cumulative live-birth rate in women with polycystic ovary syndrome or isolated polycystic ovaries undergoing in-vitro fertilisation treatment

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Quality of embryos transferred and progesterone levels are the most important predictors of live birth after fresh embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study