Published in:
Open Access 01-10-2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies
Testing the efficacy and efficiency of a single “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos: prospective randomized controlled trial and retrospective longitudinal cohort study
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 10/2018
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To study the efficacy and efficiency of a “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos, based on subsequent steps with 1 and 0.5 M concentration of extracellular cryoprotectant (ECCP).
Method
Two studies on patients undergoing fertility treatments via ICSI: a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective cohort study (CS). Setting: Private assisted reproductive (AR) center.
RCT: duration 01/03/2017–01/10/2017; 315 embryos at blastocyst stage obtained from 169 patients. Each patient’s embryos were first randomized for vitrification with two different kits: Vitrification Kit (Kitazato, Japan) and Sage Vitrification Kit (Origio, Denmark). The embryos were randomly warmed with either Kitazato (K) or Sage (S) warming kits, specifically: group A (KK), group B (KS), group C (SK), and group D (SS). Primary outcome measure: survival rate (number of embryos surviving per number of embryos warmed). Secondary: implantation rate (number of embryos implanted per number of embryos transferred).
CS: duration 01/01/2013–31/12/2015 embryos from patients’ own oocytes; 10/04/2015–31/07/2017 embryos from donors’ oocytes. A total of 1055 embryos vitrified at cleavage stage obtained from 631 warming cycles: 847 of these obtained from patients’ own oocytes, 208 egg-donation-derived embryos. Each patient’s embryos were vitrified and warmed in various combinations of three different vitrification/warming kits: Kitazato (K), Sage (S), or made in-house in our laboratory (H). Vitrification/warming kits from different manufacturers are routinely used in our AR center, and the warming procedures are randomly performed with any available kit on a “first-in-first-out” basis, irrespective of the kit used for vitrification. Group names: KK, KS, SK, SS, SH, HK, HS, HH (embryos from patients’ own oocytes); eKK, eKS, eSK, eSS (egg-donation-derived embryos).
Results
Cryo-survival rates were comparable in all study groups.
RCT. Group A 99.0% (96/97), group B 98.8% (83/84), group C 98.4% (61/62), and group D 98.6% (71/72).
CS. Embryos from patients’ own oocytes: KK 96.4% (54/56), KS 100.0% (13/13), SK 98.8% (80/81), SS 97.2% (174/179), SH 97.6% (40/41), HK 95.2% (20/21), HS 99.5% (187/188), and HH 97.4% (261/268). Egg-donation-derived embryos: eKK 100.0% (91/91), eKS 98.4% (60/61), eSK 100.0% (26/26), and eSS 96.7 (29/30).
Implantation was generally comparable in all study groups—exceptions were in CS: KS vs. SK (P = 0.049), SS (P = 0.012), HS (P = 0.010), HH (P = 0.025); and SH vs. SS (P = 0.042), HS (P = 0.035).
Conclusion
Worldwide, millions of embryos have been cryopreserved using different vitrification kits; these studies establish that it is possible to combine different kits for vitrification and warming using a universal warming protocol. This can optimize costs, simplify lab routines, and favor embryo exchange between IVF centers.
RCT registration number
ISRCTN12342851.