Are commercial warming kits interchangeable for vitrified human blastocysts? Further evidence for the adoption of a Universal Warming protocol.
Embryo cryopreservation
In vitro fertilization
Universal warming protocol
Vitrification
Warming
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
29
10
2021
accepted:
23
11
2021
pubmed:
1
12
2021
medline:
29
3
2022
entrez:
30
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To study whether a new combination of different warming kits is clinically effective for vitrified human blastocysts. This is a longitudinal cohort study analysing two hundred fifty-five blastocysts warming cycles performed between January and October 2018. Embryos were vitrified using only one brand of ready-to-use kits (Kitazato), whereas the warming procedure was performed with three of the most widely used vitrification/warming kits (Kitazato, Sage and Irvine) after patient stratification for oocyte source. The primary endpoint was survival rate, while the secondary endpoints were clinical pregnancy, live birth and miscarriage rates. We observed a comparable survival rate across all groups of 100% (47/47) in KK, 97.6% (49/50) in KS, 97.6% (41/42) in KI, 100% (38/38) in dKK, 100% (35/35) in dKS and 100% (43/43) in dKI. Clinical pregnancy rates were also comparable: 38.3% (18/47) in KK, 49% (24/49) in KS, 56.1% (23/ 41) in KI, 47.4% (18/38) in dKK, 31.4% (11/35) in dKS and 48.8% (21/ 43) in dKI. Finally, live birth rates were 29.8% (14/47) in KK, 36.7% (18/49) in KS, 46.3% (19/41) in KI, 36.8% (14/38) in dKK, 25.7% (9/35) in dKS and 41.9% (18/43) in dKI, showing no significant differences. This study confirmed the efficacy of applying a single warming protocol, despite what the "industry" has led us to believe, supporting the idea that it is time to proceed in the cryopreservation field and encouraging embryologists worldwide to come out and reveal that such a procedure is possible and safe.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34845576
doi: 10.1007/s10815-021-02364-1
pii: 10.1007/s10815-021-02364-1
pmc: PMC8866604
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
67-73Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 May;28(5):614-23
pubmed: 24657075
Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Jun;12(6):779-96
pubmed: 16792858
Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Sep;11(3):300-8
pubmed: 16176668
Fertil Steril. 2020 Feb;113(2):241-247
pubmed: 32106970
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Nov;35(5):494-510
pubmed: 28784335
Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Aug;25(2):146-67
pubmed: 22727888
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2020 Aug 5;12(2):111-118
pubmed: 32832925
Hum Reprod Update. 2017 Mar 1;23(2):139-155
pubmed: 27827818
Fertil Steril. 2014 May;101(5):1294-301
pubmed: 24582521
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Oct;35(10):1887-1895
pubmed: 30074129
Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):536-54
pubmed: 22537859
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Jun;37(6):1379-1385
pubmed: 32363563
Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Nov;25(5):466-73
pubmed: 22995746
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 4;2:CD011184
pubmed: 33539543
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 May 04;21(9):
pubmed: 32375324
Theriogenology. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):73-80
pubmed: 17055564
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2019 Feb;65(1):12-19
pubmed: 29952660
Fertil Steril. 2012 Nov;98(5):1138-46.e1
pubmed: 22862909
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 Jul 25;13:77
pubmed: 26209525
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 17;7(1):8538
pubmed: 28819292