Repeated cryopreservation process impairs embryo implantation potential but does not affect neonatal outcomes

Wang, Meng; Jiang, Jing‐Hang; Xi, Qingsong; Li, Dan; Ren, Xiaohan; Zhou, Li; Zhu, Lixia; Jin, Lei

doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.11.007

Cited by 20 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Birth weight is the most readily available indicators in epidemiological studies 16 and several studies reported the mean birthweight was similar between the twicevitrified group and the once-frozen group. 17,18 Our results showed that the birthweight of the two groups was not significantly different, which was consistent with previous researches, while the mean gestational age was significantly higher in the biopsy on vitrification-warming embryo group. A study reported that the gestational age is the most important factor affecting neonatal survival 19 and early termination of pregnancy is necessary if pregnancy complications threaten maternal and neonatal outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The progeny safety and perinatal outcome of PGT‐FET had attached more and more attention and the health of children born in the biopsy on vitrification‐warming embryos were also concerned in this study. Birth weight is the most readily available indicators in epidemiological studies 16 and several studies reported the mean birthweight was similar between the twice‐vitrified group and the once‐frozen group 17,18 . Our results showed that the birthweight of the two groups was not significantly different, which was consistent with previous researches, while the mean gestational age was significantly higher in the biopsy on vitrification‐warming embryo group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The preimplantation genetic testing clinical outcomes of biopsy on vitrification‐warming embryos: A retrospective study

Ding

Diao

Zhou

2022

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The objective of this study was to assess whether PGT conducted with previously untested vitrified embryos affect the clinical outcomes. Methods: A total of 49 patients who underwent biopsy on vitrification-warming embryos for PGT were enrolled from January 2016 to January 2019. The cleavage-stage embryos were thawed and cultured into the blastocyst stage for biopsy. During this period, 195 patients underwent routine PGT and FET, whose embryos were biopsied before frozen were used as the control group. The clinical outcomes were further compared between the two groups after a 1:2 PSM. Results: There were 47 transferable blastocysts in 30 patients, while 19 patients without transferable embryos, who performed biopsy on vitrification-warming embryos for PGT. During this study period, 27 patients have already underwent FET with the clinical pregnancy rate was 66.7% (18/27). After 1:2 PSM, 24 patients in the biopsy on vitrification-warming embryo group and 48 patients in the control group were compared, the clinical pregnancy rate (68.8% vs. 70.8%, p = 0.86), miscarriage rate (18.2% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.86), or live birth rate (52.1% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.40) had no significant difference. And the transferable blastocyst rate or the clinical pregnancy rate in the vitrification-warming cleavage-stage embryo group was not significantly different from those in the vitrification-warming blastocyst group. In addition, the PGT clinical outcomes of biopsy on vitrification-warming embryos had no significant difference between IVF-fertilized embryos and ICSI-fertilized embryos. Conclusion: Biopsy on the vitrification-warming embryos with a dual vitrified cryopreservation does not affect the embryo quality or the PGT clinical outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The preimplantation genetic testing clinical outcomes of biopsy on vitrification‐warming embryos: A retrospective study

Ding

Diao

Zhou

2022

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And some early retrospective studies have also shown that the embryos re-cryopreservation does not affect clinical pregnancy rates [9,[22][23][24]. However, other recent studies have shown that transfer of twice frozen-thawed embryos increase the rate of miscarriage and decreases the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate [10,11,25]. The discrepancies in the results of these studies may be due to the different methods used to freeze embryos,embryos frozen at different stages and mismatched baseline of clinical characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with slow-freezing method, embryo vitri cation is an ultra-rapid cryopreservation method which prevent ice formation, reduce embryo cryoinjury, have higher embryo survival rate and live birth rate [30,31]. One other study as well indicated that the embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate in the recryopreservation group were signi cantly lower, and the miscarriage rate also slightly increased [11]. In their study, embryos underwent twice cryopreservation in the blastocyst stage, in addition embryo selection was restrictive compared with once cryopreservation group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study showed that twice-frozenthawed embryos have a lower post-thaw survival rate but equivalent pregnancy outcomes to once-frozen embryos [9]. Others found repeated cryopreservation process impairs embryo implantation potential, with lower birth rate and higher miscarriage rate [10,11]. However, the patients underwent repeated cryopreserved embryo transfer may be always experienced previous embryo transfer failure, so the control group should be consistent with this, which may the sample selection bias in these studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Twice vitrification-warming procedures has no effect on frozen-thawed embryo transfer outcomes

Shen

Ding

Yuan

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To evaluate the frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) outcomes of repeated cryopreservation by vitrification of blastocysts derived from vitrified-warmed day3 embryos in patients who experienced implantation failure previously. Methods We retrospect the files of patients who underwent single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer cycles in our reproductive medical center from January 2013 to December 2019. 127 patients transfer of vitrified-warmed blastocysts derived from vitrified-warmed day3 embryos were defined as twice-cryopreserved group. 1567 patients who transfer blastocysts that had experienced once vitrified-warmed were used as once-cryopreserved group. None of them was pregnant at the previous FET. The outcomes were compared between two groups after a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Results The clinical pregnancy rate was 52.76%, live birth rate was 43.31% in twice-cryopreserved group. After PSM,108 pairs of patients were generated for comparison. The clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate or miscarriage rate was not significantly different between two groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that double vitrification-warming procedures did not affect FET outcomes in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.47-1.42), live birth rate (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.54-1.59), miscarriage rate (OR 0.72 95%CI 0.28-1.85). Furthermore, the pregnancy complications rate, gestational age or neonatal abnormalities rate between two groups was also comparable, while twice vitrification-warming procedures might increase the macrosomia rate (19.6% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.05). Conclusion Transfer of double vitrified-warmed embryo at cleavage stage and subsequent blastocyst stage did not affect live birth rate and neonatal abnormalities rate, but there was a tendency to increase macrosomia rate, which needs further investigation.

show abstract

Double vitrification–warming cycles, coupled with blastocyst biopsy, impair live birth but do not affect neonatal outcomes

Jia

et al. 2022

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To identify whether the transfer of blastocysts that have been vitrified, thawed, biopsied, revitrified, and subsequently rethawed affects clinical outcome and neonatal outcome. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in a single assisted reproduction technology center from September 2016 to March 2021. Women undergoing single frozen euploid blastocysts transfer were stratified into two groups based on number of vitrification‐thawing cycles: single vitrification coupled with single biopsy (group A, n = 177) and double vitrification coupled with single biopsy (group B, n = 30). Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results Clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups. Group B was associated with an increased likelihood of live birth when compared with group A by different multivariable analysis models (model 1: odds ratio, 0.42 [95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.97], P = 0.041; model 2: odds ratio, 0.38 [95% confidence interval, 0.16–0.92], P = 0.033). No major obstetrical complication was reported in the two groups and only one malformation live birth was reported in group A. Conclusion The procedure of double vitrification‐warming cycles, coupled with single biopsy, increases pregnancy loss and ultimately diminishes live birth but does not affect perinatal outcome. Future studies with a larger sample size would help to validate the results.

show abstract

Repeated cryopreservation process impairs embryo implantation potential but does not affect neonatal outcomes

Cited by 20 publications

References 37 publications

The preimplantation genetic testing clinical outcomes of biopsy on vitrification‐warming embryos: A retrospective study

The preimplantation genetic testing clinical outcomes of biopsy on vitrification‐warming embryos: A retrospective study

Twice vitrification-warming procedures has no effect on frozen-thawed embryo transfer outcomes

Double vitrification–warming cycles, coupled with blastocyst biopsy, impair live birth but do not affect neonatal outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About