BACKGROUNDSuccessful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice.OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALEThe objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method.SEARCH METHODSA Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI.OUTCOMESOne RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05–7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71–4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02–1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87–1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86–1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82–1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies.Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00–3.59; P = 0.051...

None.

BACKGROUNDA successful oocyte cryopreservation programme is of utmost importance where a limited number of oocytes can be inseminated per cycle, to overcome legal and ethical issues related to embryo storage, for oocyte donation programmes and for fertility preservation (especially for cancer patients). Vitrification has been recently proposed as an effective procedure for this purpose.METHODSIn order to validate the effectiveness of oocyte vitrification a non-inferiority trial was started on sibling metaphase II (MII) oocytes. To demonstrate the non-inferiority based on an absolute difference of 17% in the fertilization rate per sibling oocyte, a minimum of 222 oocytes were required. After oocyte denudation, MII oocytes with normal morphology were randomly allocated to fresh ICSI insemination or to vitrification procedure. If pregnancy was not obtained a subsequent ICSI cycle was performed with warmed oocytes of the same cohort. In both groups, three oocytes were inseminated per cycle by ICSI procedure. Primary end-points were fertilization rates calculated per warmed and per injected oocytes. Secondary end-points were zygote and embryo morphology.RESULTSA total of 244 oocytes were involved in this study. Of the 120 fresh sibling oocytes inseminated, 100 were fertilized (83.3%). Survival rate of sibling vitrified oocytes was 96.8% (120/124 oocytes). Fertilization rate after ICSI was 76.6% (95/124) per warmed oocyte and 79.2% (95/120) per survived/inseminated oocyte. No statistical difference in fertilization rates was observed between the two groups when calculated per sibling oocytes (absolute difference −6.73%; OR: 0.65; 95% CI = 0.33–1.29; P = 0.20) and per inseminated oocyte (absolute difference −4.17%; OR: 0.76; 95% CI = 0.37–1.53; P = 0.50). Embryo development was also similar in both treatment groups up till Day 2. The percentage of excellent quality embryos was 52.0% (52/100) in the fresh group and 51.6% (49/95) in the vitrification group (absolute difference −0.43%; OR: 0.98; 95% CI = 0.53–1.79; P = 0.9). The mean age of the 40 patients included in this study was 35.5 ± 4.8 years (range 26–42). Fifteen clinical pregnancies were obtained in the vitrification cycles of 39 embryo transfers performed (37.5% per cycle, 38.5% per embryo transfer), with an implantation rate of 20.2% (19/94). Three spontaneous miscarriages occurred (20%). Twelve pregnancies are ongoing (30.0% per cycle, 30.8% per embryo transfer) beyond 12 weeks of gestation.CONCLUSIONSOur results indicate that oocyte vitrification procedure followed by ICSI is not inferior to fresh insemination procedure, with regard to fertilization and embryo developmental rates. Moreover, ongoing clinical pregnancy is compatible with this procedure, even with a restricted number of oocytes available for insemination. The promising clinical results obtained, in a population of infertile patients, need to be confirmed on a larger scale.Clinical Trials Registration number: iSRCTN60158641.

No abstract

Advanced maternal age (AMA; >35 year) is associated with a decline in both ovarian reserve and oocyte competence. At present, no remedies are available to counteract the aging-related fertility decay, however different therapeutic approaches can be offered to women older than 35 year undergoing IVF. This review summarizes the main current strategies proposed for the treatment of AMA: (i) oocyte cryopreservation to conduct fertility preservation for medical reasons or “social freezing” for non-medical reasons, (ii) personalized controlled ovarian stimulation to maximize the exploitation of the ovarian reserve in each patient, (iii) enhancement of embryo selection via blastocyst-stage preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and frozen single embryo transfer, or (iv) oocyte donation in case of minimal/null residual chance of pregnancy. Future strategies and tools are in the pipeline that might minimize the risks of AMA through non-invasive approaches for embryo selection (e.g., molecular analyses of leftover products of IVF, such as spent culture media). These are yet challenging but potentially ground-breaking perspectives promising a lower clinical workload with a higher cost-effectiveness. We also reviewed emerging experimental therapeutic approaches to attempt at restoring maternal reproductive potential, e.g., spindle-chromosomal complex, pronuclear or mitochondrial transfer, and chromosome therapy. In vitro generation of gametes is also an intriguing challenge for the future. Lastly, since infertility is a social issue, social campaigns, and education among future generations are desirable to promote the awareness of the impact of age and lifestyle habits upon fertility. This should be a duty of the clinical operators in this field.