Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 10/2017

01-10-2017 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

A comparison of live birth rates and perinatal outcomes between cryopreserved oocytes and cryopreserved embryos

Authors: Jacqueline R Ho, Irene Woo, Kristin Louie, Wael Salem, Sami I Jabara, Kristin A Bendikson, Richard J Paulson, Karine Chung

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Prior studies suggest that pregnancy outcomes after autologous oocyte cryopreservation are similar to fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. It is unknown whether there are differences in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes between cryopreserved oocytes and cryopreserved embryos.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study comparing pregnancy and perinatal outcomes between oocyte and embryo cryopreservation at a university-based fertility center. We included 42 patients and 68 embryo transfers in patients who underwent embryo transfer after elective oocyte preservation (frozen oocyte-derived embryo transfer (FOET)) from 2005 to 2015. We compared this group to 286 patients and 446 cycles in women undergoing cryopreserved embryo transfer (frozen embryo transfer (FET)) from 2012 to 2015.

Results

Five hundred fourteen transfer cycles were included in our analysis. The mean age was lower in the FOET vs FET group (34.3 vs 36.0 years), but there were no differences in ovarian reserve markers. Thawed oocytes had lower survival than embryos (79.1 vs 90.1%); however, fertilization rates were similar (76.2 vs 72.8%). In the FOET vs FET groups, clinical pregnancies were 26.5 and 30%, and live birth rates were 25 and 25.1%. Miscarriages were higher in the FET group, 8.1 vs 1.5%. There were no differences in perinatal outcomes between the two groups. The mean gestational age at delivery was 39.1 vs 38.6 weeks, mean birth weight 3284.2 vs 3161.1 gms, preterm gestation rate 5.9 vs 13.4%, and multiple gestation rate 5.9 vs 11.6%.

Conclusions

In our study, live birth rates and perinatal outcomes were not significantly different in patients after oocyte and embryo cryopreservation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:1342–6.CrossRefPubMed Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:1342–6.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Cil AP, Turkgeldi L, Seli E. Oocyte cryopreservation as a preventative measure for age-related fertility loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2015 Nov;33(6):429–35.CrossRefPubMed Cil AP, Turkgeldi L, Seli E. Oocyte cryopreservation as a preventative measure for age-related fertility loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2015 Nov;33(6):429–35.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Mertes H, Pennings G. Social egg freezing: for better, not for worse. Repro Biomed Online. 2011;23:824–9.CrossRef Mertes H, Pennings G. Social egg freezing: for better, not for worse. Repro Biomed Online. 2011;23:824–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser KJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;1;23(2):139–55. Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser KJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;1;23(2):139–55.
5.
go back to reference Debrock S, Peeraer K, Fernandez Gallardo E, De Neubourg D, Spiessens C, D’Hooghe TM. Vitrification of cleavage stage day 3 embryos results in higher live birth rates than conventional slow freezing: a RCT. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):1820–30.CrossRefPubMed Debrock S, Peeraer K, Fernandez Gallardo E, De Neubourg D, Spiessens C, D’Hooghe TM. Vitrification of cleavage stage day 3 embryos results in higher live birth rates than conventional slow freezing: a RCT. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):1820–30.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference 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 Feb;31(2):241–7.CrossRefPubMed 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 Feb;31(2):241–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2239–46.CrossRefPubMed Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2239–46.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Richter KS, Shipley SK, Vearry I, Tucker MJ, Wildra EA. Cryopreserved embryo transfers suggest that endometrial receptivity may contribute to reduced success rates of later developing embryos. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:862–6.CrossRefPubMed Richter KS, Shipley SK, Vearry I, Tucker MJ, Wildra EA. Cryopreserved embryo transfers suggest that endometrial receptivity may contribute to reduced success rates of later developing embryos. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:862–6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Psych IS, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):156–62.CrossRefPubMed Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Psych IS, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):156–62.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
go back to reference Cobo A, Diaz C. Clinical application of oocyte vitrification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):277–85.CrossRefPubMed Cobo A, Diaz C. Clinical application of oocyte vitrification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):277–85.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolau 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(1):186–93.CrossRefPubMed Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolau 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(1):186–93.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Fernández-Shaw S, Cercas R, Braña C, Villas C, Pons I. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genetic. 2015 Feb;32(2):177–84.CrossRef Fernández-Shaw S, Cercas R, Braña C, Villas C, Pons I. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genetic. 2015 Feb;32(2):177–84.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11(7):CD002118. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11(7):CD002118.
15.
go back to reference American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Practice Committee of Society for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):44–6.CrossRef American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Practice Committee of Society for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):44–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Grifo JA, Noyes N. Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):391–6.CrossRefPubMed Grifo JA, Noyes N. Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):391–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Forman EJ, Li X, Ferry KM, Scott K, Treff NR, Scott RT. Oocyte vitrification does not increase the risk of embryonic aneuploidy or diminish the implantation potential of blastocysts created after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel, paired randomized controlled trial using DNA fingerprinting. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:644–9.CrossRefPubMed Forman EJ, Li X, Ferry KM, Scott K, Treff NR, Scott RT. Oocyte vitrification does not increase the risk of embryonic aneuploidy or diminish the implantation potential of blastocysts created after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel, paired randomized controlled trial using DNA fingerprinting. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:644–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference New York Times. First baby of a frozen embryo. NY Times Web. 1984;11:A16. New York Times. First baby of a frozen embryo. NY Times Web. 1984;11:A16.
20.
go back to reference Oktay K, Cil AP, Bang H. Efficiency of oocyte cryopreservation: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:70–80.CrossRefPubMed Oktay K, Cil AP, Bang H. Efficiency of oocyte cryopreservation: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:70–80.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Cobo A, Domingo J, Pérez S, Crespo J, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Vitrification: an effective new approach to oocyte banking and preserving fertility in cancer patients. Clin Transl Oncol. 2008;10:268–73.CrossRefPubMed Cobo A, Domingo J, Pérez S, Crespo J, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Vitrification: an effective new approach to oocyte banking and preserving fertility in cancer patients. Clin Transl Oncol. 2008;10:268–73.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Smith GD, Serafini PC, Fioaravanti J, Yadid I, Coslovsky M, Hassun P, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of human oocyte cryopreservation with slow-rate freezing or vitrification. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2088–95.CrossRefPubMed Smith GD, Serafini PC, Fioaravanti J, Yadid I, Coslovsky M, Hassun P, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of human oocyte cryopreservation with slow-rate freezing or vitrification. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2088–95.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Levi Setti PE, Porcu E, Patrizio P, Vigliano V, de Luca R, d’Alicia P, et al. Human oocyte cryopreservation with slow freezing versus vitrification. Results from the National Italian Registry data, 2007-2011. Fertil Steril. 2014 Jul;102(1):90–5.CrossRefPubMed Levi Setti PE, Porcu E, Patrizio P, Vigliano V, de Luca R, d’Alicia P, et al. Human oocyte cryopreservation with slow freezing versus vitrification. Results from the National Italian Registry data, 2007-2011. Fertil Steril. 2014 Jul;102(1):90–5.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Doyle JO, Richter KS, Lim J, Stillman RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ. Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):459–66.CrossRefPubMed Doyle JO, Richter KS, Lim J, Stillman RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ. Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):459–66.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Solé M, Santaló J, Boada M, Clua E, Rodríguez I, Martínez F, et al. How does vitrification affect oocyte viability in oocyte donation cycles? A prospective study to compare outcomes achieved with fresh versus vitrified sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2087–92.CrossRefPubMed Solé M, Santaló J, Boada M, Clua E, Rodríguez I, Martínez F, et al. How does vitrification affect oocyte viability in oocyte donation cycles? A prospective study to compare outcomes achieved with fresh versus vitrified sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2087–92.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Trokoudes KM, Pavlides C, Zhang X. Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):1996–2000.CrossRefPubMed Trokoudes KM, Pavlides C, Zhang X. Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):1996–2000.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Chang C, Elliot TA, Wright G, Shapiro DB, Toledo AA, Nagy ZP. Prospective controlled study to evaluate laboratory and clinical outcomes of oocyte vitrification obtained in in vitro fertilization patients aged 30 to 39 years. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1891–7.CrossRefPubMed Chang C, Elliot TA, Wright G, Shapiro DB, Toledo AA, Nagy ZP. Prospective controlled study to evaluate laboratory and clinical outcomes of oocyte vitrification obtained in in vitro fertilization patients aged 30 to 39 years. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1891–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Magguilli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(1):66–73.CrossRefPubMed Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Magguilli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(1):66–73.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Druckenmiller S, Goldman KN, Labella PA, Fino ME, Bazzocchi A, Noyes N. Successful oocyte cryopreservation in reproductive-aged cancer survivors. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(3):474–80.CrossRefPubMed Druckenmiller S, Goldman KN, Labella PA, Fino ME, Bazzocchi A, Noyes N. Successful oocyte cryopreservation in reproductive-aged cancer survivors. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(3):474–80.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Devine K, Mumford SL, Goldman KN, Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Propst AM, et al. Baby budgeting: oocyte cryopreservation in women delaying reproduction can reduce cost per live birth. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1446–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Devine K, Mumford SL, Goldman KN, Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Propst AM, et al. Baby budgeting: oocyte cryopreservation in women delaying reproduction can reduce cost per live birth. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1446–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Li Z, Wang YA, Ledger W, Edgar DH, Sullivan EA. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2794–801.CrossRefPubMed Li Z, Wang YA, Ledger W, Edgar DH, Sullivan EA. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2794–801.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A comparison of live birth rates and perinatal outcomes between cryopreserved oocytes and cryopreserved embryos
Authors
Jacqueline R Ho
Irene Woo
Kristin Louie
Wael Salem
Sami I Jabara
Kristin A Bendikson
Richard J Paulson
Karine Chung
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0995-2

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 10/2017 Go to the issue