Top

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Published in:

01-09-2015 | Embryo Biology

Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles

Authors: Hai-Yan Zhu, Ya-Mei Xue, Ling-Yun Yang, Ling-Ying Jiang, Chao Ling, Xiao-Mei Tong, Song-Ying Zhang

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 9/2015

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare slow freezing (SF) and vitrification (VT) techniques for day 3 embryo cryopreservation in infertile couples.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 5613 infertile patients, with 7862 frozen-thawed day 3 embryos and 3845 vitrified-warmed day 3 embryos, from 2010 to 2014, at a single center. The rates of embryo survival, pregnancy, implantation, miscarriage, live birth, and live birth weight were compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 5613 cycles with 5520 transfers were analyzed. Using SF, the rates of overall embryo survival and fully intact blastomeres were lower than those in VT (91.5 vs. 97.4 % and 68.7 vs. 92.3 %, respectively). The rate of good quality embryos after thawing/warming was lower in SF than in VT. In single frozen embryo transfer cycles (FETs), the pregnancy and implantation rates were similar between the two groups (35.0 vs. 40.8 % and 34.6 vs. 35.9 %, respectively). In double FETs, the pregnancy rate per cycle was also similar between the groups (58.8 vs. 58.4 %). The implantation rate per embryo transfer was significantly higher with SF than with VT (38.8 vs. 34.6 %). With adjustment for maternal age and the number of good quality embryos, differences in implantation rate remained significant (adjusted P value, SF vs. VT P < 0.05). No independent effect was found for the method of cryopreservation on the pregnancy rate. No significant differences in the rates of miscarriage, live birth, and live birth weight were observed between the two techniques.

Conclusions

Despite the significantly low embryo survival rate, fully intact blastomere rate, and good quality embryo rate in SF, the pregnancy and implantation rates were not adversely affected in single and double FETs. SF yielded an equivalent miscarriage rate, live birth rate, and live birth weight compared with VT. The SF protocol to cryopreserve day 3 embryos still should be considered.

Michelmann HW, Nayudu P. Cryopreservation of human embryos. Cell Tissue Bank. 2006;7:135–41.CrossRefPubMed

Wu K, Zhao H, Liu H, Li M, Ma S, Li C, et al. Day 3 ET, single blastocyst transfer (SBT) or frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET): which is preferable for high responder patients in IVF/ICSI cycles? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:275–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Roy TK, Bradley CK, Bowman MC, McArthur SJ. Single-embryo transfer of vitrified-warmed blastocysts yields equivalent live-birth rates and improved neonatal outcomes compared with fresh transfers. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1294–301.CrossRefPubMed

Shaw JM, Jones GM. Terminology associated with vitrification and other cryopreservation procedures for oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:583–605.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305:707–9.CrossRefPubMed

Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:19–26.CrossRefPubMed

Van Landuyt L, Van de Velde H, De Vos A, Haentjens P, Blockeel C, Tournaye H, et al. Influence of cell loss after vitrification or slow-freezing on further in vitro development and implantation of human Day 3 embryos. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2943–9.CrossRefPubMed

Liebermann J, Nawroth F, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Tucker MJ. Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol Reprod. 2002;67:1671–80.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which one is better? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:270–4.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Movaghar 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(6):347–54.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

12.

Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomized 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.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wilding MG, Capobianco C, Montanaro N, Kabili G, Di Matteo L, Fusco E, et al. Human cleavage-stage embryo vitrification is comparable to slow rate cryopreservation in cycles of assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:549–54.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

14.

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.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Zhu H, Liu L, Yang L, Xue Y, Tong X, Jiang L, et al. The effect of progesterone level prior to oocyte retrieval on the numbers of oocytes retrieved and embryo quality in IVF treatment cycles: an analysis of 2,978 cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1183–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Veeck LL. An atlas of human gametes and conceptuses: an illustrated reference for assisted reproductive technology. Preembryo grading and degree of cytoplasmic fragmentation. New York: Parthenon Publishing; 1999. p. 46–51.CrossRef

17.

Edgar DH, Bourne H, Speirs AL, McBain JC. A quantitative analysis of the impact of cryopreservation on the implantation potential of human early cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:175–9.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Xue Y, Tong X, Jiang L, Zhu H, Yang L, Zhang S. Effect of vitrification versus slow freezing of human day 3 embryos on β-hCG levels. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1037–43.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

19.

Kyuwa S, Nishikawa T, Kaneko T, Nakashima T, Kawano K, Nakamura N, et al. Experimental evaluation of cross-contamination between cryotubes containing mouse 2-cell embryos and murine pathogens in liquid nitrogen tanks. Exp Anim. 2003;52:67–70.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Morris GJ. The origin, ultrastructure, and microbiology of the sediment accumulating in liquid nitrogen storage vessels. Cryobiology. 2005;50:231–8.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fasano G, Fontenelle N, Vannin AS, Biramane J, Devreker F, Englert Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(2):241–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

22.

Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Buccheri M, Maggiulli R, Sapienza F, Romano S, et al. The worldwide frozen embryo reservoir: methodologies to achieve optimal results. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1221:32–9.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Human Reprod Update. 2012;18:536–54.CrossRef

24.

Edgar DH, Karani J, Gook DA. Increasing dehydration of human cleavage-stage embryos prior to slow cooling significantly increases cryosurvival. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:521–5.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Jericho H, Wilton L, Gook DA, Edgar DH. A modified cryopreservation method increases the survival of human biopsied cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(3):568–71.CrossRefPubMed

26.

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

27.

Li Y, Chen ZJ, Yang HJ, Zhong WX, Ma SY, Li M. 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

Title: Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles
Authors: Hai-Yan Zhu
Ya-Mei Xue
Ling-Yun Yang
Ling-Ying Jiang
Chao Ling
Xiao-Mei Tong
Song-Ying Zhang
Publication date: 01-09-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0545-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

Reduced blastocyst formation in reduced culture volume

Antimullerian hormone levels are inversely associated with body mass index (BMI) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Dexamethasone attenuates the embryotoxic effect of endometriotic peritoneal fluid in a murine model

Association of WNT4 polymorphisms with endometriosis in infertile patients

Birth of a healthy child after preimplantation genetic screening of embryos from sperm of a man with non-mosaic Down syndrome

Serum progesterone levels greater than 20 ng/dl on day of embryo transfer are associated with lower live birth and higher pregnancy loss rates