A monocentric analysis of the efficacy of extracellular cryoprotectants in unfrozen solutions for cleavage stage embryos.
ART
Cryopreservation
IVF
Slow-freezing
Vitrification
Warming
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Oct 2019
27 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
23
04
2019
accepted:
29
08
2019
entrez:
29
10
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
24
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the absence of international guidelines indicating the usage of vitrification rather than slow-freezing, the study aim was to analyze a large cohort of slow-frozen/thawed embryos to produce a rationale supporting the standardization of IVF cryopreservation policy. This retrospective analysis included 4779 cleavage stage embryos cryopreserved by slow-freezing/thawing from September 2009 to April 2017 at a single Center. Biological and clinical outcomes of three different commercial kits adopted sequentially, i.e. Vitrolife Cleave Kit® from Vitrolife (kit 1) vs. K-SICS-5000 Kit® and K-SITS-5000 Kit® from Cook Medical (kit 2) and Freeze/Thaw 1™ Kit® from Vitrolife (kit 3) were collected and compared in the light of cryoprotectants composition. Kit 3 compared to kit 1 and kit 2 showed significantly (P < 0.001) higher embryo survival (79.9% vs. 75.6 and 68.1%, respectively) and frozen embryo replacement (91.5% vs. 86.5 and 83.3%, respectively) rates, and significantly (P < 0.001) lower blastomere degeneration rate (41.5% vs. 43.6 and 52.4%, respectively). No significant difference for clinical outcomes was observed among kits. Only a slight positive trend was observed for kit 3 vs. kit 1 and kit 2 on delivery rate per thawing cycle (7.12% vs. 4.19 and 4.51%, respectively; P < 0.058) and live birth rate (3.07% vs. 2.59 and 1.93%, respectively, P < 0.069). Thawing solutions of kit 3 were similar to those of any warming protocol. A defined concentration of extracellular cryoprotectants in thawing/warming solutions had a beneficial effect on the embryo cryosurvival rate. Results could provide the rationale for the adoption of a single standardized warming protocol.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In the absence of international guidelines indicating the usage of vitrification rather than slow-freezing, the study aim was to analyze a large cohort of slow-frozen/thawed embryos to produce a rationale supporting the standardization of IVF cryopreservation policy.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective analysis included 4779 cleavage stage embryos cryopreserved by slow-freezing/thawing from September 2009 to April 2017 at a single Center. Biological and clinical outcomes of three different commercial kits adopted sequentially, i.e. Vitrolife Cleave Kit® from Vitrolife (kit 1) vs. K-SICS-5000 Kit® and K-SITS-5000 Kit® from Cook Medical (kit 2) and Freeze/Thaw 1™ Kit® from Vitrolife (kit 3) were collected and compared in the light of cryoprotectants composition.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Kit 3 compared to kit 1 and kit 2 showed significantly (P < 0.001) higher embryo survival (79.9% vs. 75.6 and 68.1%, respectively) and frozen embryo replacement (91.5% vs. 86.5 and 83.3%, respectively) rates, and significantly (P < 0.001) lower blastomere degeneration rate (41.5% vs. 43.6 and 52.4%, respectively). No significant difference for clinical outcomes was observed among kits. Only a slight positive trend was observed for kit 3 vs. kit 1 and kit 2 on delivery rate per thawing cycle (7.12% vs. 4.19 and 4.51%, respectively; P < 0.058) and live birth rate (3.07% vs. 2.59 and 1.93%, respectively, P < 0.069). Thawing solutions of kit 3 were similar to those of any warming protocol.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A defined concentration of extracellular cryoprotectants in thawing/warming solutions had a beneficial effect on the embryo cryosurvival rate. Results could provide the rationale for the adoption of a single standardized warming protocol.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31656205
doi: 10.1186/s12958-019-0519-2
pii: 10.1186/s12958-019-0519-2
pmc: PMC6815413
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cryoprotective Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
84Références
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 May;28(5):614-23
pubmed: 24657075
Hum Reprod. 2008 Sep;23(9):1976-82
pubmed: 18544577
Hum Reprod. 2017 Oct 1;32(10):1957-1973
pubmed: 29117383
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Mar;1221:32-9
pubmed: 21401627
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2019 Feb;65(1):12-19
pubmed: 29952660
Fertil Steril. 1985 Nov;44(5):645-51
pubmed: 4054343
Hum Reprod Update. 2017 Mar 1;23(2):139-155
pubmed: 27827818
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016 Jul 30;14(1):40
pubmed: 27475526
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2016 Oct;62(5):335-42
pubmed: 27400398
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Sep;27(9-10):549-54
pubmed: 20640501
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Jun;37(6):1379-1385
pubmed: 32363563
Nature. 1983 Oct 20-26;305(5936):707-9
pubmed: 6633637
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Oct;33(10):1389-1393
pubmed: 27465302
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014 Feb;31(2):241-7
pubmed: 24317854
Fertil Steril. 1984 Aug;42(2):293-6
pubmed: 6745463
Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Dec;25(6):591-9
pubmed: 23069744
Hum Reprod. 2015 Aug;30(8):1820-30
pubmed: 26089301
Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep 1;33(9):1586-1601
pubmed: 30032255
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 Sep;32(9):1371-7
pubmed: 26238389
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jul;102(1):19-26
pubmed: 24890275
Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Aug;25(2):146-67
pubmed: 22727888
Hum Reprod. 2013 Nov;28(11):2943-9
pubmed: 24014599
Hum Reprod. 2016 Feb;31(2):233-48
pubmed: 26740578
Minerva Ginecol. 2015 Apr;67(2):207-15
pubmed: 25714875
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017 Oct 3;15(1):79
pubmed: 28974230
Hum Reprod. 2013 Aug;28(8):2101-10
pubmed: 23592220
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Oct;35(10):1887-1895
pubmed: 30074129
Fertil Steril. 2008 Jul;90(1):186-93
pubmed: 17980870
Hum Reprod Update. 2003 Nov-Dec;9(6):583-605
pubmed: 14714593
Semin Reprod Med. 2015 Mar;33(2):128-44
pubmed: 25734350
Reprod Med Biol. 2017 Apr 05;16(2):118-125
pubmed: 29259458
Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):536-54
pubmed: 22537859
Hum Reprod. 2013 Sep;28(9):2425-31
pubmed: 23756705
Hum Reprod. 2017 Sep 1;32(9):1786-1801
pubmed: 29117321
Fertil Steril. 2012 Nov;98(5):1138-46.e1
pubmed: 22862909
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015 Mar;43(3):219-24
pubmed: 25708846