Pregnancy and birth outcomes following fresh or vitrified embryo transfer according to blastocyst morphology and expansion stage, and culturing strategy for delayed development.
How do live birth rates (LBRs), following fresh and vitrified/warmed embryo transfer, compare according to morphological grade, developmental stage and culturing strategy of human blastocysts in vitro?
Equivalent LBRs were obtained after fresh embryo transfer and after vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of blastocysts of top or non-top quality, while vitrification after prolonged embryo culture of blastocysts with delayed development had a positive impact on LBR.
Blastocyst morphology correlates with clinical outcome; however, few data are available on vitrified/warmed embryo transfer using non-top quality blastocysts. The aim of this study was to determine clinical outcomes of non-top quality blastocysts and blastocysts with delayed development that underwent vitrified/warmed embryo transfer.
This retrospective, single-centre study (conducted January 2009 to June 2013) compared 1010 fresh embryo transfer and 1270 vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of blastocysts originating from the same stimulation cycle. Furthermore, 636 fresh embryo transfers and 304 vitrified/warmed embryo transfer after delayed expansion or blastulation in the same period were also analysed.
Clinical outcomes after fresh and vitrified/warmed embryo transfer according to blastocyst morphology were compared in both groups.
Similar LBRs after fresh embryo transfer or after vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of top or non-top quality blastocysts were observed. A statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes was obtained after vitrified/warmed embryo transfer of Day 5 embryos with delayed expansion or blastulation when applying prolonged culture. Our study suggests that vitrification of non-top quality blastocysts as well as delayed cavitating and blastulating Day 5 embryos should be considered in autologous IVF cycles.
Given that the present retrospective study used aseptic vitrification of blastocysts, the results, particularly the survival rates, may not be fully applicable to other vitrification protocols. The retrospective nature of the study has to be mentioned.
Restriction of vitrification to top quality blastocysts may result in discarding potentially viable embryos.
This study was not externally funded. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
Wirleitner B
，Schuff M
，Stecher A
，Murtinger M
，Vanderzwalmen P
... -
《-》
Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study.
What are the clinical efficacy and perinatal outcomes following transfer of vitrified blastocysts compared with transfer of fresh or of slow frozen blastocysts?
Compared with slow frozen blastocysts, vitrified blastocysts resulted in significantly higher clinical pregnancy and live delivery rates with similar perinatal outcomes at population level.
Although vitrification has been reported to be associated with significantly increased post-thaw survival rates compared with slow freezing, there has been a lack of general consensus over which method of cryopreservation (vitrification versus slow freezing) is most appropriate for blastocysts.
A population-based cohort of autologous fresh and initiated thaw cycles (a cycle where embryos were thawed with intention to transfer) performed between January 2009 and December 2011 in Australia and New Zealand was evaluated retrospectively. A total of 46 890 fresh blastocyst transfer cycles, 12 852 initiated slow frozen blastocyst thaw cycles and 20 887 initiated vitrified blastocyst warming cycles were included in the data analysis.
Pairwise comparisons were made between the vitrified blastocyst group and slow frozen or fresh blastocyst group. A Chi-square test was used for categorical variables and t-test was used for continuous variables. Cox regression was used to examine the pregnancy outcomes (clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and live delivery rate) and perinatal outcomes (preterm delivery, low birthweight births, small for gestational age (SGA) births, large for gestational age (LGA) births and perinatal mortality) following transfer of fresh, slow frozen and vitrified blastocysts.
The 46 890 fresh blastocyst transfers, 11 644 slow frozen blastocyst transfers and 19 978 vitrified blastocyst transfers resulted in 16 845, 2766 and 6537 clinical pregnancies, which led to 13 049, 2065 and 4955 live deliveries, respectively. Compared with slow frozen blastocyst transfer cycles, vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles resulted in a significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (adjusted relative risk (ARR): 1.47, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.39-1.55) and live delivery rate (ARR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.34-1.49). Compared with singletons born after transfer of fresh blastocysts, singletons born after transfer of vitrified blastocysts were at 14% less risk of being born preterm (ARR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.96), 33% less risk of being low birthweight (ARR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58-0.78) and 40% less risk of being SGA (ARR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.53-0.68).
A limitation of this population-based study is the lack of information available on clinic-specific cryopreservation protocols and processes for slow freezing-thaw and vitrification-warm of blastocysts and the potential impact on outcomes.
This study presents population-based evidence on clinical efficacy and perinatal outcomes associated with transfer of fresh, slow frozen and vitrified blastocysts. Vitrified blastocyst transfer resulted in significantly higher clinical pregnancy and live delivery rates with similar perinatal outcomes compared with slow frozen blastocyst transfer. Comparably better perinatal outcomes were reported for singletons born after transfer of vitrified blastocysts than singletons born after transfer of fresh blastocysts. Elective vitrification could be considered as an alternative embryo transfer strategy to achieve better perinatal outcomes following Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatment.
No specific funding was obtained. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Li Z
，Wang YA
，Ledger W
，Edgar DH
，Sullivan EA
... -
《-》
Vitrification preservation of good-quality blastocysts for more than 5 years reduces implantation and live birth rates.
Does vitrification cryopreservation of embryos for more than 5 years affect the pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer (FET)?
Vitrification cryopreservation of good-quality blastocysts for more than 5 years is associated with a decrease in the implantation rate (IR) and live birth rate (LBR).
Previous studies have predominantly focused on embryos cryopreserved for relatively short durations (less than 5 years), yet the impact of extended cryopreservation duration on pregnancy outcomes remains a controversial issue. There is a relative scarcity of data regarding the efficacy and safety of storing embryos for 5 years or longer.
This retrospective study involved 36 665 eligible vitrified-thawed embryo transfer cycles from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2022, at a single fertility center in China.
Patients were divided into three groups according to embryo storage time: Group 1 consisted of 31 565 cycles, with storage time of 0-2 years; Group 2 consisted of 4458 cycles, with a storage time of 2-5 years; and Group 3 included 642 cycles, with storage time exceeding 5 years. The main outcome measures were IR and LBR. Secondary outcome variables included rates of biochemical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage, as well as neonatal outcomes. Reproductive outcomes were analyzed as binary variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the effect of preservation time on pregnancy outcomes after correcting for confounding factors. In addition, we also assessed neonatal outcomes, such as large for gestational age (LGA) and small for gestational age (SGA).
IRs in the three groups (0-2, 2-5, and >5 years) were 37.37%, 39.03%, and 35.78%, respectively (P = 0.017), and LBRs in the three groups were 37.29%, 39.09%, and 34.91%, respectively (P = 0.028). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, compared with the 0-2 years storage group, prolonged embryo vitrification preservation time (2-5 years or >5 years) did not affect secondary outcomes such as rates of biochemical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage (P > 0.05). But cryopreservation of embryos for more than 5 years reduced the IR (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97, P = 0.020) and LBR (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91, P = 0.002). Multivariate stratified analysis also showed that prolonging the cryopreservation time of blastocysts (>5 years) reduced the IR (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98, P = 0.033) and LBR (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87, P = 0.002). However, no effect on cleavage embryos was observed (P > 0.05). We further conducted stratified analyses based on the number and quality of frozen blastocysts transferred, and the results showed that the FET results after transfers of good-quality blastocysts in the >5 years storage group were negatively affected. However, the storage time of non-good-quality blastocysts was not significantly associated with pregnancy outcomes. Regarding the neonatal outcomes (of singletons), embryo vitrification preservation time had no effect on preterm birth rates, fetal birth weight, or neonatal sex ratios. However, as the storage time increased, rates of SGA (5.60%, 4.10%, and 1.18%) decreased, while rates of LGA (5.22%, 6.75%, and 9.47%) increased (P < 0.05). After adjusting for confounding factors, the increase in LGA and the decrease in SGA were significantly correlated with the duration of storage time.
This was a retrospective study using data from a single fertility center, even though the data had been adjusted, our findings still need to be validated in further studies.
With the full implementation of the two-child policy in China, there may be more patients whose embryos have been frozen for a longer time in the future. Patients should be aware that the IR and LBR of blastocysts are negatively affected when the cryopreservation time is longer than 5 years. Couples may therefore consider shortening the time until FET treatment.
This study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 82101672), Science and Technology Projects in Guangzhou (No. 2024A03J0180), General Guidance Program for Western Medicine of Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission (No. 20231A011096), and the Medical Key Discipline of Guangzhou (2021-2023). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.
N/A.
Zhan S
，Lin C
，Lin Q
，Gan J
，Wang C
，Luo Y
，Liu J
，Du H
，Liu H
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
