BACKGROUND A successful oocyte vitrification program is important for women with various indications for assisted reproduction technology. The objective of this study was to report the outcome of vitrification of oocytes, obtained through an oocyte donation program, by evaluating the embryo development, pregnancy and implantation rates (IRs) after blastocyst transfer. METHODS A total of 1098 oocytes were obtained from 78 donors. There were 312 oocytes used in the study group (vitrified oocytes) and 786 used in the control group (fresh oocytes). There were 34 recipients who received blastocysts obtained from vitrified oocytes and 58 recipients who received blastocysts from fresh oocytes. The fertilization rate, cleavage rate, embryo quality, pregnancy rate (PR) and IR were compared between groups. RESULTS Vitrified oocytes showed a survival rate of 89.4%. There was no difference in the fertilization rate (76.1 and 87.5%), Day 2 cleavage rate (96.3 and 98.0%) or blastocyst formation rate (41.3 and 45.3%) for the study and control groups, respectively. PRs, IRs and miscarriages rates (MRs) were similar for the study group compared with the control group (PR: 61.8 versus 60.0%; IR: 43.9 versus 42.9%; MR: 9.5 versus 5.9%). CONCLUSIONS The developmental competence of embryos obtained from vitrified oocytes is not affected by the vitrification procedure, since they preserve the potential to be fertilized and to develop into high-quality blastocysts, similar to embryos from fresh oocytes. The successful clinical outcome indicates the use of this procedure for oocyte donation programs and for oocyte storage in general.
Objective To study if the number of trophectoderm (TE) biopsied cells has an impact on implantation rates. Design A retrospective cohort study in a single-center study. Setting In vitro fertilization center. Patients Patients who underwent PGT-A from January 2013 to March 2016. In total, 482 vitrified/warmed single embryo transfers were included. Interventions None. Main outcome measures Clinical pregnancies rate, implantation rate. Results Overall, clinical pregnancies per embryo transfer were higher when a regular TE were biopsied compared to larger size biopsy cells (66% (175/267) vs 53% (115/215) (p < 0.005) respectively). Pregnancy rates were also analyzed according to embryo morphology at the moment of embryo biopsy, when a good-quality embryo was transferred the clinical outcome was 75% (81/108) in group 1 and 61% (60/99) in group 2 (p < 0.05). Data was also stratified by age in patients ≤ 35 years and > 35 years. The clinical pregnancy was 67% (51/76) in women ≤ 35 years and 65% (124/191) in women > 35 years when a regular size biopsy was performed. These results significantly reduced when a larger size biopsy was performed 54% (49/91) and 53% (66/124), respectively (p < 0.05). Further investigation indicated that miscarriage rate was similar between these groups (4% (7/182) in group 1 and 5% (6/121) in group 2). Conclusions These findings underscore that when a large amount of TE cells are biopsied, it may negatively affect implantation rates, but once implanted, the embryos have the same chance to miscarry or reach term.
and percentage of abnormalities for each analyzed chromosome were similar for the vitrified group compared with the control group. Conclusions: The rates of chromosomal abnormalities in embryos from vitrified oocytes are similar to those published previously; and comparable to those observed in embryos from fresh oocytes. These results confirm that the developmental competence and chromosomal status of embryos obtained from vitrified oocytes is not affected by the vitrification procedure, and they preserve the potential to be fertilized and to develop in to blastocyst stage similar to embryos from fresh oocytes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.