Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes.

IF 1.8 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Chara Oraiopoulou, Mary Karagianni, Achilleas Papatheodorou, Olga Toumpa, Marianna Papadopoulou, Nicholaos Christophoridis, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Alexia Chatziparasidou
{"title":"Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes.","authors":"Chara Oraiopoulou, Mary Karagianni, Achilleas Papatheodorou, Olga Toumpa, Marianna Papadopoulou, Nicholaos Christophoridis, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Alexia Chatziparasidou","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20240014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of double embryo vitrification on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included data from January 2013 to March 2021. The study group included women aged 33.3±5.7 years with double-vitrified embryos (n=381), while the control group included women aged 32.1±6.7 years with embryos vitrified once (n=780), all transferred at the blastocyst stage. The primary endpoint was live birth rate (LBR), and secondary endpoints included percent positive βHCG test, clinical/ongoing pregnancy rates, miscarriage/biochemical pregnancy rates and birthweight.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LBR was significantly lower in double-vitrified embryos (30.2%) than in embryos vitrified once (45.6%, p<.05). Similarly, double-vitrified embryos were associated with significantly lower positive βHCG tests (46% vs. 63.3%, p<.05) and clinical (34.9% vs. 52.2%, p<.05) and ongoing pregnancy (31.3% vs. 47.3%, p<.05) rates compared to embryos vitrified once. However, biochemical pregnancy (double vitrified: 24.1% vs. vitrified once: 17.9%, p>.05) and miscarriage rates (double vitrified: 10.2% vs. vitrified once: 9.4%, p>.05), as well as mean birthweight (double-vitrified embryos: 2950g vs. embryos vitrified once: 2837g, p>.05) did not differ significantly between two groups. On a secondary comparison, amongst double-vitrified embryos, the subgroup that was cultured for more than 24 hours between warming and second vitrification achieved significantly higher positive βHCG tests (49%) and clinical pregnancy (38%) rates, compared to embryos re-vitrified on the same day of warming (31.8% and 20.5%, respectively, p<.05). Nevertheless, LBR did not differ significantly amongst these study-group embryos (embryos that remained in culture for more than 24 hours: 32.2% vs. embryos that were re-vitrified on warming day: 20.5%, p>.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes. However, it represents a valuable option concerning embryo wastage, with acceptable success rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":46364,"journal":{"name":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","volume":" ","pages":"399-404"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20240014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of double embryo vitrification on clinical outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included data from January 2013 to March 2021. The study group included women aged 33.3±5.7 years with double-vitrified embryos (n=381), while the control group included women aged 32.1±6.7 years with embryos vitrified once (n=780), all transferred at the blastocyst stage. The primary endpoint was live birth rate (LBR), and secondary endpoints included percent positive βHCG test, clinical/ongoing pregnancy rates, miscarriage/biochemical pregnancy rates and birthweight.

Results: LBR was significantly lower in double-vitrified embryos (30.2%) than in embryos vitrified once (45.6%, p<.05). Similarly, double-vitrified embryos were associated with significantly lower positive βHCG tests (46% vs. 63.3%, p<.05) and clinical (34.9% vs. 52.2%, p<.05) and ongoing pregnancy (31.3% vs. 47.3%, p<.05) rates compared to embryos vitrified once. However, biochemical pregnancy (double vitrified: 24.1% vs. vitrified once: 17.9%, p>.05) and miscarriage rates (double vitrified: 10.2% vs. vitrified once: 9.4%, p>.05), as well as mean birthweight (double-vitrified embryos: 2950g vs. embryos vitrified once: 2837g, p>.05) did not differ significantly between two groups. On a secondary comparison, amongst double-vitrified embryos, the subgroup that was cultured for more than 24 hours between warming and second vitrification achieved significantly higher positive βHCG tests (49%) and clinical pregnancy (38%) rates, compared to embryos re-vitrified on the same day of warming (31.8% and 20.5%, respectively, p<.05). Nevertheless, LBR did not differ significantly amongst these study-group embryos (embryos that remained in culture for more than 24 hours: 32.2% vs. embryos that were re-vitrified on warming day: 20.5%, p>.05).

Conclusions: Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes. However, it represents a valuable option concerning embryo wastage, with acceptable success rates.

胚胎双重玻璃化会对临床结果产生不利影响。
目的:评估双胚胎玻璃化对临床结果的影响:评估双胚胎玻璃化对临床结果的影响:这项回顾性队列研究包括2013年1月至2021年3月的数据。研究组包括年龄为 33.3±5.7 岁、胚胎经过两次玻璃化处理的女性(381 人),对照组包括年龄为 32.1±6.7 岁、胚胎经过一次玻璃化处理的女性(780 人),所有胚胎均在囊胚期移植。主要终点是活产率(LBR),次要终点包括βHCG检测阳性率、临床/持续妊娠率、流产/生化妊娠率和出生体重:双重玻璃化胚胎的LBR(30.2%)明显低于一次性玻璃化胚胎(45.6%,P.05),流产率(双重玻璃化:10.2% vs. 一次性玻璃化:9.4%,P>.05)和平均出生体重(双重玻璃化胚胎:2950克 vs. 一次性玻璃化胚胎:2837克,P>.05)在两组间无明显差异。经二次比较,在两次玻璃化的胚胎中,在升温和第二次玻璃化之间培养超过24小时的亚组,βHCG检测阳性率(49%)和临床妊娠率(38%)明显高于在升温当天再次玻璃化的胚胎(分别为31.8%和20.5%,P.05):结论:胚胎双重玻璃化会对临床结果产生不利影响。结论:胚胎双重玻璃化会对临床结果产生不利影响,但它是解决胚胎浪费问题的一种有价值的选择,其成功率是可以接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信