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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Effect of day 3 embryo morphometrics and morphokinetics on survival and implantation after slow freezing-thawing and after vitrification-warming: a retrospective cohort study

Authors: Elia Fernandez Gallardo, Carl Spiessens, Thomas D’Hooghe, Sophie Debrock

Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Morphometric and morphokinetic evaluation of in vitro cultured human embryos allows evaluation without time restriction and reduces intra- and inter-observer variability. Even though these technologies have been reported to improve the quality of cleavage stage embryo evaluation during fresh culture, possible advantages in the evaluation of cryopreserved embryos have been scarcely explored. This study aims to compare morphometric and morphokinetic parameters between slow frozen and vitrified embryos and to determine their relationship to embryo survival and implantation rate (IR) after thawing/warming.

Methods

During fresh culture, morphometric characteristics (Total Cell Volume (TCV), symmetry, fragmentation and number of blastomeres) were measured in 286 thawed/warmed embryos. Likewise, after thawing/warming, similar morphometric characteristics were measured in 135 survived embryos. Moreover, morphokinetic parameters (time to mitosis resumption and time to compaction) were measured in 90 embryos after thawing/warming. Then, using linear regression, we investigated the differences between vitrified and slow frozen embryos and the relation of the measured characteristics to embryo survival and IR. Statistical corrections were applied to account for data clustering and for multiple testing.

Results

Vitrified embryos resume mitosis and start compaction significantly earlier than slow frozen embryos. Mitosis resumption rate was 82% for vitrified and 63% for slow frozen embryos and median time to mitosis resumption was 7.6 h and 13.1 h (p = 0.02), respectively. Compaction rate was 62% in vitrified and only 23% in slow frozen embryos. Median time to compaction was 18.1 h for vitrified embryos but, for slow frozen could not be computed since less than half of the slow frozen embryos reached compaction (p = 0.0001). Moreover, intact embryos resume mitosis significantly earlier than not intact ones regardless of the freezing method (rate: 79% vs. 66%, median time: 7.6 h vs 14.6 h, respectively, p = 0.03). Regarding morphometrics, slow frozen embryos showed lower TCV and higher blastomere symmetry after thawing than vitrified embryos despite having similar blastomere number. IR was related to blastomere number at cryopreservation in slow frozen embryos, but not in vitrified ones.

Conclusions

Interestingly, vitrified/warmed embryos undergo mitosis resumption and compaction significantly earlier than slow frozen/thawed embryos. However, the clinical use of this morphokinetic parameters still remains to be investigated in larger studies.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered on December 15, 2015 NCT02639715.
Literature
1.
Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;6:CD002118.
2.
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
3.
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
4.
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
5.
Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:536–54.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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
7.
Zhu HY, Xue YM, Yang LY, Jiang LY, Ling C, Tong XM, et al. Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1371–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Alpha Scientists In Reproductive Medicine. The Alpha consensus meeting on cryopreservation key performance indicators and benchmarks: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;25:146–67.CrossRef
9.
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and Eshre Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.CrossRef
10.
Xue Y, Tong X, Jiang L, Zhu H, Yang L, Zhang S. Effect of vitrification versus slow freezing of human day 3 embryos on beta-hCG levels. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1037–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Veleva Z, Orava M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Factors affecting the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2425–31.CrossRefPubMed
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.
Cercas R, Villas C, Pons I, Brana C, Fernandez-Shaw S. Vitrification can modify embryo cleavage stage after warming. Should we change endometrial preparation? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:1363–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Chi F, Luo C, Yin P, Hong L, Ruan J, Huang M, et al. Vitrification of day 3 cleavage-stage embryos yields better clinical outcome in comparison with vitrification of day 2 cleavage-stage embryos. Zygote. 2015;23:169–76.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Cobo A, de los Santos MJ, Castello D, Gamiz P, Campos P, Remohi 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. e1CrossRefPubMed
16.
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;30:1820–30.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Desai N, Blackmon H, Szeptycki J, Goldfarb J. Cryoloop vitrification of human day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: post-vitrification development, pregnancy outcomes and live births. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14:208–13.CrossRefPubMed
18.
El-Danasouri I, Selman H. Successful pregnancies and deliveries after a simple vitrification protocol for day 3 human embryos. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:400–2.CrossRefPubMed
19.
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;31:241–7.CrossRefPubMed
20.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Sole M, Santalo J, Rodriguez I, Boada M, Coroleu B, Barri PN, et al. Correlation between embryological factors and pregnancy rate: development of an embryo score in a cryopreservation programme. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28:129–36.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Tang R, Catt J, Howlett D. Towards defining parameters for a successful single embryo transfer in frozen cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1179–83.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zheng X, Liu P, Chen G, Qiao J, Wu Y, Fan M. Viability of frozen-thawed human embryos with one-two blastomeres lysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25:281–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Ziebe S, Lundin K, Loft A, Bergh C, Nyboe Andersen A, Selleskog U, et al. FISH analysis for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y in all blastomeres of IVF pre-embryos from 144 randomly selected donated human oocytes and impact on pre-embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2575–81.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Munne S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;12:234–53.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J, et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2427–31.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjogren A, Lundin K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:313–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Paternot G, Debrock S, De Neubourg D, D'Hooghe TM, Spiessens C. Semi-automated morphometric analysis of human embryos can reveal correlations between total embryo volume and clinical pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:627–33.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Fernandez Gallardo E, Spiessens C, D'Hooghe T, Debrock S. Effect of embryo morphology and morphometrics on implantation of vitrified day 3 embryos after warming: a retrospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
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
31.
Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Van Waesberghe L, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Viability of partially damaged human embryos after cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2006–10.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1513–21.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Joshi BV, Banker MR, Patel PM, Shah PB. Transfer of human frozen-thawed embryos with further cleavage during culture increases pregnancy rates. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2010;3:76–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Paternot G, Debrock S, D'Hooghe T, Spiessens C. Computer-assisted embryo selection: a benefit in the evaluation of embryo quality? Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23:347–54.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Paternot G, Devroe J, Debrock S, D'Hooghe TM, Spiessens C. Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7:105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Sundvall L, Ingerslev HJ, Breth Knudsen U, Kirkegaard K. Inter- and intra-observer variability of time-lapse annotations. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:3215–21.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Debrock S, Melotte C, Spiessens C, Peeraer K, Vanneste E, Meeuwis L, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:364–73.CrossRefPubMed
38.
De Neubourg D, Bogaerts K, Wyns C, Albert A, Camus M, Candeur M, et al. The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2709–19.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Debrock S, Peeraer K, Spiessens C, Willemen D, De Loecker P, D'Hooghe TM. The effect of modified quarter laser-assisted zona thinning on the implantation rate per embryo in frozen/vitrified-thawed/warmed embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1997–2007.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Wet van 6/07/2007 betreffende de medisch begeleide voortplanting en de bestemming van de overtallige embryo’s en de gameten, art 9 (June 2007).
41.
Hnida C, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Traditional detection versus computer-controlled multilevel analysis of nuclear structures from donated human embryos. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:665–71.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Johansson M, Hardarson T, Lundin K. There is a cutoff limit in diameter between a blastomere and a small anucleate fragment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20:309–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Stedman MR, Gagnon DR, Lew RA, Jung SH, Losina E, Brookhart MA. A SAS macro for a clustered logrank test. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2011;104:266–70.CrossRef
44.
Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1287–94. e5CrossRefPubMed
45.
Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:617–31.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Goyanes V, Cupeiro A, Campos A, Lage B, Garcia Alonso L, Cornelissen G, et al. Circadian rhythm of sister chromatid exchanges in human chromosomes. In Vivo. 1995;9:413–5.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Effect of day 3 embryo morphometrics and morphokinetics on survival and implantation after slow freezing-thawing and after vitrification-warming: a retrospective cohort study
Authors
Elia Fernandez Gallardo
Carl Spiessens
Thomas D’Hooghe
Sophie Debrock
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7827
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-017-0299-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Review

The myths surrounding mild stimulation in vitro fertilization (IVF)

Review

Role of microRNAs in premature ovarian insufficiency

Research

Hexokinase 2 drives glycogen accumulation in equine endometrium at day 12 of diestrus and pregnancy

Research

Differences in utilization of Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) within human services (HHS) regions and metropolitan megaregions in the U.S.

Research

An open-label clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of corifollitropin alfa combined with hCG in adult men with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism

Research

Differential gene expression profiling of endometrium during the mid-luteal phase of the estrous cycle between a repeat breeder (RB) and non-RB cows