Objective: To compare embryonic development, ploidy status and clinical outcomes between fresh and frozen-thawed oocytes.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated 83 fertilization cycles including both fresh and frozen oocytes from 79 patients at the HP Fertility Center of Hai Phong International Hospital of Obstetrics and Pediatrics in Vietnam. The patient underwent several ovarian stimulation cycles to accumulate a certain number of oocytes that would be vitrified. In the last oocyte retrieval, all patient's oocytes including both frozen and fresh would be fertilized. The outcomes included the rates of oocyte survival, cleavage embryo, blastocyst, ploidy status, pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy.
Results: The oocyte survival rate after thawing was 96.5%. No statistically significant difference was found when comparing fresh and frozen oocytes regarding fertilization rate (78.1% vs. 75.5%, P=0.461), usable cleavage embryo rate (86.9% vs. 87.2%, P=0.916) but usable blastocyst rate was found higher statistically in the frozen oocyte group (44.4% vs. 54.0%, P=0.049). The percentages of euploid, aneuploid and mosaic embryos between the fresh group and the vitrified group had no significant differences (33.8% vs. 31.6%, P=0.682; 51.0% vs. 54.2%, P=0.569; 15.2% vs. 12.4%, P=0.787; respectively). The rates of pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy had no statistical difference (68.8% vs. 64.8%, P=0.764; 12.5% vs. 3.6%, P=0.258; 37.5% vs. 46.4%, P=0.565). 17 Mature oocytes are the minimum to have at least one euploid embryo.
Conclusions: Oocyte vitrification does not affect embryonic, genetic and clinical results. The number of mature oocytes should be considered for fertilization in some cases.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Institute of Biotechnology, VAST, Vietnam and the doctors, embryologists, nurses and midwives at Hai Phong International of Obstetrics and Pediatrics, who all contributed to patient care.
Funding
The study received no extramural funding.
Authors’ contributions
Phuong Dao Thi, Van Hanh Nguyen, and Thuan Nguyen Duc performed the concept and design of the study. Collection and processing of material were carried out by Anh Pham Van, Son Dang Truong, and Anh Do Tuan. Phuong Dao Thi was responsible for writing the manuscript. Phuong Dao Thi and Van Hanh Nguyen edited the manuscript. All authors proofread and approved the final manuscript.
Publisher's Note
The Publisher of the Journal remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
| [1] |
Chorya JB, Sutaria TV, Chaudhari RK, Chaudhari CF. Impact of gamete health on fertilization and embryo development: An overview. Asian Pac J Reprod 2022; 11(5): 201-207.
|
| [2] |
Cao YX, Xing Q, Li L, Cong L, Zhang ZG, Wei ZL, et al. Comparison of survival and embryonic development in human oocytes cryopreserved by slow-freezing and vitrification. Fertil Steril 2009; 92(4): 1306-1311.
|
| [3] |
Jones A, Van Blerkom J, Davis P, Toledo AA. Cryopreservation of metaphase II human oocytes effects mitochondrial membrane potential: Implications for developmental competence. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(8): 1861-1866.
|
| [4] |
Gook DA, Osborn SM, Bourne H, Johnston W. Fertilization of human oocytes following cryopreservation; normal karyotypes and absence of stray chromosomes. Hum Reprod 1994; 9(4): 684-691.
|
| [5] |
Rienzi L, Martinez F, Ubaldi F, Minasi MG, Iacobelli M, Tesarik J, et al. Polscope analysis of meiotic spindle changes in living metaphase II human oocytes during the freezing and thawing procedures. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(3): 655-659.
|
| [6] |
Chian RC, Huang JY, Tan SL, Lucena E, Saa A, Rojas A, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcome in 200 infants conceived from vitrified oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online 2008; 16(5): 608-610.
|
| [7] |
Forman EJ, Li X, Ferry KM, Scott K, Treff NR, Scott Jr RT. Oocyte vitrification does not increase the risk of embryonic aneuploidy or diminish the implantation potential of blastocysts created after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A novel, paired randomized controlled trial using DNA fingerprinting. Fertil Steril 2012; 98(3): 644-649.
|
| [8] |
Chen C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. The Lancet 1986; 327(8486): 884-886.
|
| [9] |
Oktay K, Cil AP, Bang H. Efficiency of oocyte cryopreservation: A meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2006; 86(1): 70-80.
|
| [10] |
Edgar DH, Gook DA. How should the clinical efficiency of oocyte cryopreservation be measured? Reprod BioMed Online 2007; 14(4): 430-435.
|
| [11] |
Borini A, Cattoli M, Bulletti C, Coticchio G. Clinical efficiency of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008; 1127(1): 49-58.
|
| [12] |
Mazzilli R, Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Capalbo A, Dovere L, Alviggi E, et al. Effect of the male factor on the clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection combined with preimplantation aneuploidy testing: Observational longitudinal cohort study of 1 219 consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril 2017; 108(6): 961-972. e963.
|
| [13] |
Labs EGGoGPiI, De los Santos MJ, Apter S, Coticchio G, Debrock S, Lundin K, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Hum Reprod 2016; 31(4): 685-686.
|
| [14] |
Gandhi G, Kuwayama M, Kagalwala S, Pangerkar P. Appendix A:Cryotech® vitrification thawing. In: Gandhi G, Kuwayama M, Kagalwala S, Pangerkar P. (eds.) Cryopreservation of mammalian gametes and embryos: Methods and protocols. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2017, p. 281-295.
|
| [15] |
Sakkas D, Gardner DK. Evaluation of embryo quality analysis of morphology and physiology. In: Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z. (eds.) Textbook of assisted reproductive techniques. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017, p. 225-242.
|
| [16] |
Medicine ASiR, Embryology ESIGo. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: Proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011; 26(6): 1270-1283.
|
| [17] |
Goldman KN, Kramer Y, Hodes-Wertz B, Noyes N, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. Long-term cryopreservation of human oocytes does not increase embryonic aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2015; 103(3): 662-668.
|
| [18] |
Buderatska N, Gontar J, Ilyin I, Lavrinenko S, Petrushko M, Yurchuk T. Does human oocyte cryopreservation affect equally on embryo chromosome aneuploidy? Cryobiology 2020; 93: 33-36.
|
| [19] |
Vuong T, Vo M, Ho M. Predictive value of AMH, FSH, AFC for determining ovarian response in Vietnamese women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies: A prospective study. JFIV Reprod Med Genet 2015; 3: 151.
|
| [20] |
Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Pérez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril 2008; 89(6): 1657-1664.
|
| [21] |
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 2010; 25(9): 2239-2246.
|
| [22] |
Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: A prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25(1): 66-73.
|
PDF
(1015KB)
