Oocyte vitrification does not affect early developmental timings after intracytoplasmic sperm injection for women younger than 30 years old

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproductive technology: past achievements and current challenges

Cryopreservation has revolutionized the treatment of infertility and fertility preservation. This review summarizes the milestones that paved the way to the current routinary clinical implementation of this game-changing practice in assisted reproductive technology. Still, evidence to support "the best practice" in cryopreservation is controversial and several protocol adaptations exist that were described and compared here, such as cumulus-intact vs. cumulus-free oocyte cryopreservation, artificial collapse, assisted hatching, closed vs. open carriers, and others. A last matter of concern is whether cryostorage duration may impact oocyte/embryo competence, but the current body of evidence in this regard is reassuring. From social and clinical perspectives, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation has evolved from an afterthought when assisted reproduction was intended for immediate pregnancy with supernumerary embryos of secondary interest to its current purpose, which primarily is to preserve fertility long-term and more comprehensively allow for family planning. However, the initial consenting process, which still is geared to short-term fertility care, may no longer be relevant when the individuals that initially preserved the tissues have completed their reproductive journey. A more encompassing counseling model is required to address changing patient values over time.

Efficiency and efficacy of vitrification in 35 654 sibling oocytes from donation cycles

STUDY QUESTION

Is oocyte vitrification/warming as efficient and effective as using fresh oocytes in donation cycles?

SUMMARY ANSWER

IVF with vitrified donor oocytes is less efficient than using fresh oocytes, but its efficacy remains comparable to that of fresh cycles.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Oocyte vitrification is used to preserve the reproductive potential of oocytes. A small number of randomized controlled trials carried out by experienced groups have shown that this technique provides fertilization, pregnancy, implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates comparable to those of fresh oocytes. However, large registry-based analyses have consistently reported lower live birth rates (LBRs) in cycles using vitrified oocytes. It is not clear whether this decrease may be due to the effect of vitrification per se on the oocytes or to the lower efficiency of the technique, as some of the oocytes do not survive after warming.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Retrospective cohort analysis of 1844 cycles of oocyte donation (37 520 oocytes), each donor in the study provided enough oocytes for at least one reception cycle with fresh oocytes (2561 cycles) and one reception cycle with vitrified oocytes (2471 cycles) from the same ovarian stimulation (sibling oocytes). Overall, 35 654 oocytes were considered in the analysis. All embryo transfers (n = 5032) were carried out between 2011 and 2017.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Differences in reproductive outcomes after the first embryo transfer were evaluated using Pearson's Chi-squared test and regression analysis adjusted for recipient's age, BMI, sperm origin and state, day of embryo transfer, morphological score and number of transferred embryos. We performed two additional sub-analyses, to test whether the efficiency and/or effectiveness of vitrification/warming impacts reproductive results. One analysis included paired cycles where the same number of fresh and vitrified oocytes were available for ICSI (SAME sub-analysis), while the second analysis included those cycles with a 100% survival rate post-warming (SAME100 sub-analysis).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Baseline and cycle characteristics of participants were comparable between groups. Overall, fertilization rates and embryo morphological scores were significantly lower (P < 0.001) when using vitrified oocytes; moreover, vitrified oocytes also resulted in lower reproductive outcomes than sibling fresh oocytes using both unadjusted and adjusted analyses: ongoing pregnancy (32.1% versus 37.5%; P < 0.001; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77, 1.00) and live birth (32.1% versus 31.9%; P = 0.92; OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90, 1.49). However, when the efficiency of warming was taken into account, reproductive outcomes in recipients became comparable: ongoing pregnancy (33.5% versus 34.1%; P = 0.82; OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.87, 1.43) and LBR (32.1% versus 32%; P = 0.97; OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89, 1.48). Moreover, after selecting only cycles that, in addition to having the same number of oocytes available for ICSI, also had 100% post-warming survival rate in the vitrified group, reproductive outcomes were also comparable between fresh and vitrified oocytes: ongoing pregnancy (34.8% versus 32.4%; P = 0.42; OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98, 1.77) and live birth (32.9% versus 31.0%; P = 0.52; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.95, 1.71), indicating that reproductive outcomes of these cycles are affected by the efficiency of the vitrification/warming technique performed rather than the oocyte damage due to the fast cooling process to which oocytes are subjected.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

An open vitrification system was used for all cases, and oocyte vitrification/warming was performed by experienced embryologists with consistently high survival rates; caution must be exerted when extrapolating our results to data obtained using other open vitrification systems, closed vitrification systems or to IVF units with survival rates <90%.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the largest cohort study comparing reproductive outcomes of vitrified and fresh sibling donor oocytes to date. We found that, when the number of oocytes available after warming is equal to the number of fresh oocytes, reproductive results including live birth are comparable. Consequently, the efficiency of vitrification must be taken into account to achieve the same reproductive outcomes as with fresh oocytes. We recommend implementing strict indicators of vitrification/warming efficiency in clinics and refining vitrification/warming protocols to maximize survival.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by intramural funding of Clínica EUGIN and by the Secretary for Universities and Research of the Ministry of Economy and Knowledge of the Government of Catalonia (GENCAT 2015 DI 048). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Assisted oocyte activation effects on the morphokinetic pattern of derived embryos

OBJECTIVE

Assisted oocyte activation (AOA) can restore fertilization rates after IVF/ICSI cycles with fertilization failure. AOA is an experimental technique, and its downstream effects remain poorly characterized. Clarifying the relationship between AOA and embryo, morphokinetics could offer complementary insights into the quality and viability of the embryos obtained with this technique. The aim of this study is to compare the preimplantation morphokinetic development of embryos derived from ICSI-AOA (experimental group) vs. ICSI cycles (control group).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was carried out with 141 embryos from fresh oocyte donation cycles performed between 2013 and 2017; 41 embryos were derived from 7 ICSI-AOA cycles and 100 embryos from 18 ICSI cycles. Morphokinetic development of all embryos was followed using a time-lapse system.

RESULTS

We show that embryos from both groups develop similarly for most milestones, with the exception of the time of second polar body extrusion (tPB2) and the time to second cell division (t3).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that ionomycin mediated AOA does not seem to affect the morphokinetic pattern of preimplantation embryo development, despite the alterations found in tPB2 and t3, which could directly reflect the use of a Ca²⁺ ionophore as a transient and quick non-physiologic increase of free intracytoplasmic Ca²⁺.