Blastocyst freeze-all strategy versus fresh transfer in anonymous oocyte donation cycles

Abstract

ploidy). Reports indicated the % of fragmented sperm DNA (DFI). Patients were divided into 2 groups: (<15% and >15%) and incidence of segmental aneuploidy was compared between the groups in 2 ways: 1) any segmental aneuploidy (among all embryos, including those with an additional whole chromosome aneuploidy) and 2) segmental aneuploidy only (no other whole chromosome aneuploidy).RESULTS: A total of 169 cases were included in the analysis. DFI <15% was found in 123 specimens, while DFI >15% was found in 45 specimens. The median DFI for the entire study population was 11 (interquartile range: 8 to 15). Men in the 15% DFI group were older (40.6 vs. 38.0, p<0.01), but there was no difference in the age of the female partner (37.9 vs. 37.4, p ¼ 0.71). There was no difference in the rate of conversion to blastocyst. The incidence of any segmental aneuploidy and only segmental aneuploidy was no different between the groups. The incidence of whole chromosome aneuploidy was also no different (Table 1).CONCLUSION: Specimens with elevated DNA Fragmentation used for ICSI do not result in an increased incidence of segmental aneuploidy in trophectoderm biopsy samples evaluated by NGS. These results suggest three possible rationales: 1) DNA damage in the male may be at least partially repaired by oocyte-derived mechanisms, 2) small deletions and duplications may be below the diagnostic threshold of current NGS technologies, or 3) SDF testing, which relies on average levels among pooled sperm, may be limited in its ability to prognosticate embryonic segmental aneuploidy.

Efficiency of Autologous Egg Cryopreservation: Eight Years’ Experiences and Clinical Outcomes

“…In the present study, when we analyzed the efficiency of oocyte cryopreservation in women at different age groups, we found that live birth rates can reach to 51.1, 46.7 and 28.6% in women <35, 35-37, and > 37 years old, respectively, with their first embryo transfer (fresh), which is comparable to live birth rates with embryo transfer from fresh oocytes in our clinic or other published data [2,3,9,23,25]. A decreased Efficiency of Autologous Egg Cryopreservation: Eight Years' Experiences and Clinical Outcomes DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98675 tendency in live birth rate was observed in women >37 years as compared with women ≤37 years old.…”

“…Therefore, women's age at the time of oocyte cryopreservation is the most important factor affecting live birth rates. Present and previous data [3,9,[16][17][18] suggest that women should preserve their oocytes before 37 years old if they plan to rely on oocyte cryopreservation to have a live birth. However, for the women who are more than 37 years old, it is still possible to have their oocytes to be cryopreserved for future use, but success mainly relies on oocyte quality and number [3,9,13].…”

“…It has been demonstrated that oocyte cryopreservation does not compromise in vitro development and pregnancy rates as compared with fresh oocytes [1,[9][10][11][12]. Because of its reliability and efficiency, oocyte cryopreservation allows young cancer patients to have their oocytes collected prior to the initiation of chemo-or radiotherapy for the treatment of various malignant diseases, with the expectation of having their oocytes fertilized after recovery [2,3,19,20]. It also would permit healthy women to have their oocytes collected and preserved for use in the future [4,7,8,[16][17][18] and for donor oocyte bank establishment [24,25,33].…”

“…Oocyte cryopreservation is one of the state-of-art technologies in human assisted reproductive technologies (ART), which provides opportunities for women to preserve their fertility. Recently, the demand for oocyte cryopreservation has increased significantly, especially in women who want to delay childbearing for medical or no medial indications [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

“…This phenomenon increases the demand for women to preserve their fertility by oocyte cryopreservation before their fertility declines [4,18]. Although fertility preservation could benefit women who have hematologic diseases, breast cancer, some pelvic cancers and systematic diseases requiring chemotherapy, radiotherapy or bone marrow transplantation [2,3,19,20], most users of this technology are healthy women who want to postpone childbearing [2,3,7,8,17,18,21,22].…”