The effects of age, mature oocyte number, and cycle number on cumulative live birth rates after planned oocyte cryopreservation.
Assisted reproductive technology
Egg freezing
Egg thaw
Fertility preservation
Oocyte cryopreservation
Oocyte thaw
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:
02 Jul 2024
02 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
17
05
2023
accepted:
12
06
2024
medline:
3
7
2024
pubmed:
3
7
2024
entrez:
2
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To examine the effects of age, mature oocyte number, and cycle number on cumulative live birth rates after planned oocyte cryopreservation (OC), with the goal of developing a patient counselling tool. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with ≥ 1 autologous oocyte thaw at our university-affiliated fertility center before 12/31/2023. Patients were included if they (1) had a live birth or ongoing pregnancy > 12 weeks from OC, or (2) used all oocytes and euploid/untested embryos from OC. Primary outcome was cumulative live birth / ongoing pregnancy rate (CLBR). 527 patients with 1 OC cycle, 149 patients with 2 OC cycles, and 55 patients with ≥ 3 OC cycles were included. Overall CLBR was 43%. CLBR was > 70% among patients who thawed ≥ 20 mature oocytes that were cryopreserved at age < 38 years. Multiple logistic regression showed that age at first OC and total number of mature oocytes thawed independently predicted CLBR, but number of OC cycles did not. Patients must be counselled that younger age at OC and more mature oocytes improve CLBR. However, additional OC cycles do not independently improve CLBR. Our results can help patients decide whether to pursue additional OC cycles to obtain more oocytes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38955888
doi: 10.1007/s10815-024-03175-w
pii: 10.1007/s10815-024-03175-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Cascante SD, Blakemore JK, DeVore S, Hodes-Wertz B, Fino ME, Berkeley AS, et al. Fifteen years of autologous oocyte thaw outcomes from a large university-based fertility center. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:158–66.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.04.013
pubmed: 35597614
Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:769–76.
doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60025-9
pubmed: 19490780
Grifo JA, Noyes N. Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:391–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.067
pubmed: 19439285
Hodes-Wertz B, Noyes N, Mullin C, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. Retrospective analysis of outcomes following transfer of previously cryopreserved oocytes, pronuclear zygotes and supernumerary blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:118–23.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.03.020
pubmed: 21550305
Goldman KN, Noyes NL, Knopman JM, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. Oocyte efficiency: does live birth rate differ when analyzing cryopreserved and fresh oocytes on a per-oocyte basis? Fertil Steril. 2013;100:712–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.040
pubmed: 23721713
Trokoudes KM, Pavlides C, Zhang X. Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1996–2000.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.035
pubmed: 21406304
Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2010;25:2239–46.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq146
Levi-Setti PE, Borini A, Patrizio P, Bolli S, Vigiliano V, De Luca R, et al. ART results with frozen oocytes: data from the Italian ART registry (2005–2013). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:123–8.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-015-0629-5
pubmed: 26676654
Goldman RH, Racowsky C, Farland LV, Munne S, Ribustello L, Fox JH. Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2017;32:853–9.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex008
Maslow BL, Guarnaccia MM, Ramirez L, Klein JU. Likelihood of achieving a 50%, 60%, or 70% estimated live birth rate threshold with 1 or 2 cycles of planned oocyte cryopreservation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:1637–43.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-020-01791-w
pubmed: 32418136
pmcid: 7376799
Noyes N, Knopman J, Labella P, McCaffrey C, Clark-Williams M, Grifo J. Oocyte cryopreservation outcomes including pre-cryopreservation and post-thaw meiotic spindle evaluation following slow cooling and vitrification of human oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2078–82.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.01.019
pubmed: 20188356
Fox J, Goldman R. BWH Egg Freezing Counseling Tool (EFCT), MDCalc. www.mdcalc.com/calc/3937/bwh-egg-freezing-counseling-tool-efct . Accessed 26 June 2024.
Blakemore JK, Grifo JA, DeVore SM, Hodes-Wertz B, Berkeley AS. Planned oocyte cryopreservation-10-15-year follow-up: return rates and cycle outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1511–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.01.011
pubmed: 33712289
Leung AQ, Baker K, Vaughan D, Shah JS, Korkidakis A, Ryley DA, et al. Clinical outcomes and utilization from over a decade of planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:671–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.024
pubmed: 34474973