Cryopreserved Oocyte Versus Fresh Oocyte Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles, United States, 2013

Overview

Journal Fertil Steril

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2016 Nov 16

PMID 27842997

Citations 25

Authors

Sara Crawford

Sheree L Boulet

Jennifer F Kawwass

Denise J Jamieson

Dmitry M Kissin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To compare characteristics, explore predictors, and compare assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle, transfer, and pregnancy outcomes of autologous and donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles with fresh oocyte cycles.

Design: Retrospective cohort study from the National ART Surveillance System.

Setting: Fertility treatment centers.

Patient(s): Fresh embryo cycles initiated in 2013 utilizing embryos created with fresh and cryopreserved, autologous and donor oocytes.

Intervention(s): Cryopreservation of oocytes versus fresh.

Main Outcomes Measure(s): Cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates per cycle, transfer, and/or pregnancy.

Result(s): There was no evidence of differences in cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, or live birth rates between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles had a decreased risk of cancellation before transfer (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.96) as well as decreased likelihood of pregnancy (aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95) and live birth (aRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95); however, there was no evidence of differences in implantation, pregnancy, or live birth rates when cycles were restricted to those proceeding to transfer. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles proceeding to pregnancy had a decreased risk of miscarriage (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97) and higher live birth rate (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09) with the transfer of one embryo, but higher miscarriage rate (aRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.54) and lower live birth rate (aRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) with the transfer of two or more.

Conclusion(s): There was no evidence of differences in ART outcomes between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. There was evidence of differences in per-cycle and per-pregnancy outcomes between donor cryopreserved and fresh oocyte cycles, but not in per-transfer outcomes.

Citing Articles

Comparison of fresh testicular sperm aspiration and use of either thawed pre-frozen sperm or oocyte freezing: impact on cumulative live birth rates for couples experiencing ejaculation failure.

Zhan S, An G, Gan J, Du H, Fu X, Wang C Hum Reprod. 2024; 40(2):199-209.

PMID: 39740242 PMC: 11788192. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae290.

Clinical utilization and outcomes over eight consecutive years following oocyte cryopreservation.

Murugappan G, Sikder M, Vaccari S, Minjarez D, Tran N, Kim J J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 42(2):413-421.

PMID: 39633145 PMC: 11871152. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03334-z.

Patient experience of social and medical fertility preservation fully reimbursed in France.

Hagege E, Pirtea P, Burette J, Canepa A, Graesslin O, de Ziegler D J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(10):2813-2822.

PMID: 39138766 PMC: 11534921. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03222-6.

Trends and outcomes of fresh and frozen donor oocyte cycles in the United States.

Braun C, DeSantis C, Lee J, Kissin D, Kawwass J Fertil Steril. 2024; 122(5):844-855.

PMID: 38986758 PMC: 11560672. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.07.004.

The Effect of Open and Closed Oocyte Vitrification Systems on Embryo Development: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Pantos K, Maziotis E, Trypidi A, Grigoriadis S, Agapitou K, Pantou A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(9).

PMID: 38731179 PMC: 11084263. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092651.

References

Almodin C, Minguetti-Camara V, Paixao C, Pereira P . Embryo development and gestation using fresh and vitrified oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(5):1192-8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq042. View

Sole M, Santalo J, Boada M, Clua E, Rodriguez I, Martinez F . How does vitrification affect oocyte viability in oocyte donation cycles? A prospective study to compare outcomes achieved with fresh versus vitrified sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(8):2087-92. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det242. View

Kushnir V, Barad D, Albertini D, Darmon S, Gleicher N . Outcomes of Fresh and Cryopreserved Oocyte Donation. JAMA. 2015; 314(6):623-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.7556. View

Garcia J, Noriega-Portella L, Noriega-Hoces L . Efficacy of oocyte vitrification combined with blastocyst stage transfer in an egg donation program. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(4):782-90. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der008. View

Devine K, Mumford S, Goldman K, Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Propst A . Baby budgeting: oocyte cryopreservation in women delaying reproduction can reduce cost per live birth. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(6):1446-53.e1-2. PMC: 4457614. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.029. View

Glujovsky D, Riestra B, Sueldo C, Fiszbajn G, Repping S, Nodar F . Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (9):CD010047. PMC: 11246547. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010047.pub2. View

Trokoudes K, Pavlides C, Zhang X . Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95(6):1996-2000. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.035. View

Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Perez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohi J . Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril. 2007; 89(6):1657-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.050. View

Parmegiani L, Cognigni G, Bernardi S, Cuomo S, Ciampaglia W, Infante F . Efficiency of aseptic open vitrification and hermetical cryostorage of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23(4):505-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.003. View

10.

Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A . Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(9):2239-46. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq146. View

11.

Goldman K, Noyes N, Knopman J, McCaffrey C, Grifo J . Oocyte efficiency: does live birth rate differ when analyzing cryopreserved and fresh oocytes on a per-oocyte basis?. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(3):712-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.040. View

12.

. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2012; 99(1):37-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.028. View

13.

Mesen T, Mersereau J, Kane J, Steiner A . Optimal timing for elective egg freezing. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(6):1551-6.e1-4. PMC: 4457646. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.002. View

14.

. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98(6):1395-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.026. View

15.

Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E . Embryo development of fresh 'versus' vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2009; 25(1):66-73. PMC: 2794665. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep346. View