Effect of the Re-Vitrification of Embryos at Different Stages on Embryonic Developmental Potential

Blastocyst formation in vitrified-warmed preimplantation embryos derived from vitrified-warmed oocytes in a mouse model

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use a mouse model to investigate the blastocyst formation rate in vitrified-warmed embryos derived from vitrified-warmed oocytes.

METHODS

Metaphase II oocytes obtained from BDF1 mice were vitrified and warmed, followed by fertilization with epididymal sperm. On day 3, a total of 176 embryos, at either the eight-cell or the morula stage, were vitrified-warmed (representing group 1). For group 2, 155 embryos at the same developmental stages were not vitrified, but rather were directly cultured until day 5. Finally, group 3 included day-5 blastocysts derived from fresh oocytes, which served as fresh controls. The primary outcome measured was the rate of blastocyst formation per day-3 embryo at the eight-cell or morula stage.

RESULTS

The rates of blastocyst formation per day-3 embryo were comparable between groups 1 and 2, at 64.5% and 69.7%, respectively (p>0.05). The formation rates of good-quality blastocysts (expanded, hatching, or hatched) were also similar for groups 1 and 2, at 35.5% and 43.2%, respectively (p>0.05). For the fresh oocytes (group 3), the blastocyst formation rate was 75.5%, which was similar to groups 1 and 2. However, the rate of good-quality blastocyst formation in group 3 was 57.3%, significantly exceeding those of group 1 (p=0.001) and group 2 (p=0.023).

CONCLUSION

Regarding developmental potential to the blastocyst stage, vitrified-warmed day-3 embryos originating from vitrified-warmed oocytes demonstrated comparable results to non-vitrified embryos from similar oocytes. These findings indicate that day-3 embryos derived from vitrified-warmed oocytes can be effectively cryopreserved without incurring cellular damage.

Effect of repeated vitrification of human embryos on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Repeated cryopreservation of embryos should occasionally be considered when embryos were not suitable for transfer. The effect of re-cryopreservation on embryos remains contentious.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of twice vitrificated blastocyst derived from once vitrified embryos. Total 410 vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles were divided into two groups according to the times of embryo vitrification: (1) vitrified blastocysts derived from fresh blastocysts (control group, n = 337); (2) twice vitrified blastocysts derived from once vitrified embryos (n = 73). The primary outcome was live birth rate. Multivariable logistic or linear regression analysis model was performed to describe the association between embryo cryopreservation times and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

No difference was observed in female age at retrieval and transfer, infertility period, body mass index (BMI), infertility type, endometrial thickness, and embryo transfer numbers between the two groups. The pregnancy outcomes of embryos in repeated cryopreservation group were comparable to those of embryos in control group, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the cryopreservation times did not affect the outcomes of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth. Moreover, there was no difference in gestational age, birthweight and sex ratio of singleton newborns between groups. After correcting several possible confounding variables, no significant association was observed between cryopreservation times and neonatal birthweight.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes achieved with twice vitrified blastocyst transfer were comparable to those achieved with vitrified blastocyst transfer in control group.

A comprehensive review and update on human fertility cryopreservation methods and tools

The broad conceptualization of fertility preservation and restoration has become already a major concern in the modern western world since a large number of individuals often face it in the everyday life. Driven by different health conditions and/or social reasons, a variety of patients currently rely on routinely and non-routinely applied assisted reproductive technologies, and mostly on the possibility to cryopreserve gametes and/or gonadal tissues for expanding their reproductive lifespan. This review embraces the data present in human-focused literature regarding the up-to-date methodologies and tools contemporarily applied in IVF laboratories' clinical setting of the oocyte, sperm, and embryo cryopreservation and explores the latest news and issues related to the optimization of methods used in ovarian and testicular tissue cryopreservation.

Accumulation of Cleavage-Stage Embryos by Vitrification may Compromise Embryonic Developmental Potential in Preimplantation Genetic Testing

It was suggested that the embryo pooling was an alternative for patients with insufficient number of embryos for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in a single ovarian stimulation cycle. However, limited study noticed whether it is an efficient strategy to pool cleavage-stage embryos by vitrification. This study included 71 cycles with vitrified-warmed and fresh embryos simultaneously for PGT between May 2016 and May 2021. The embryos from the same patients were split into two groups based on the origin: warming group and fresh group. Embryo development, sequencing results, clinical and neonatal outcomes were compared. The results showed that the rate of high-quality embryos in the warming group was significantly higher than that in the fresh group (64.53% versus 52.61%, P = 0.011); however, the available blastocyst rate in this group was significantly lower than that in the fresh group (47.29% versus 57.83%, P = 0.026). There were 96 and 144 blastocysts that underwent trophectoderm (TE) biopsy in warming and fresh groups, respectively. The high-quality blastocyst rate was significantly lower in the warming group compared to the fresh group (57.29% versus 70.14%, P = 0.041). The rates of genetic transferable blastocyst were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.956). There were no statistical differences in terms of embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rates, and neonatal outcomes between the two groups. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the cleavage-stage embryo pooling strategy might be unfavorable for the maintenance of embryonic development potential. If not necessary, it is not recommended to pool cleavage-stage embryos for PGT.