Maternal Age at Transfer Following Autologous Oocyte Cryopreservation is Not Associated with Live Birth Rates

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2024 Jun 13

PMID 38869781

Authors

Francesca G Barrett

Sarah D Cascante

David McCulloh

James A Grifo

Jennifer K Blakemore

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Our aim was to evaluate if maternal age at transfer following autologous oocyte cryopreservation is associated with live birth rate (LBR).

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who thawed autologous oocytes and then underwent a single frozen euploid embryo transfer between 2011 and 2021 at a large urban university-affiliated fertility center. Each oocyte thaw patient was matched 2:1 to in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients who underwent single embryo transfer < 1 year after retrieval. Primary outcome was LBR. Secondary outcomes included implantation rates (IR) and spontaneous abortion rates (SABR).

Results: A total of 169 oocyte thaw patients were matched to 338 IVF patients. As expected, oocyte thaw patients were older (median age 42.5 vs. 37.6 years, p < 0.001) and waited longer between retrieval and transfer than in vitro fertilization patients (median time 59 vs. 1 month, p < 0.001). In univariate analysis, implantation and LBR differed among oocyte thaw and IVF patients (p < 0.05), but SABR did not (p = 0.57). Transfer outcomes in oocyte thaw patients did not differ based on transfer age group (IR: p = 0.18; SABR: p = 0.12; LBR: p = 0.24). In a multiple logistic regression model, age at transfer was not predictive of live birth when controlling for age at retrieval, embryo morphology, and day of blastulation.

Conclusions: Maternal age at transfer after oocyte cryopreservation is not predictive of LBR; this suggests that "an aging womb" does not impair LBR after oocyte thaw and empowers patients to return for transfer when ready for childbearing.

References

. Evidence-based outcomes after oocyte cryopreservation for donor oocyte in vitro fertilization and planned oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2021; 116(1):36-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.024. View

Goldman K, Kramer Y, Hodes-Wertz B, Noyes N, McCaffrey C, Grifo J . Long-term cryopreservation of human oocytes does not increase embryonic aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2014; 103(3):662-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.11.025. View

Te Velde E, Habbema D, Leridon H, Eijkemans M . The effect of postponement of first motherhood on permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries since the 1970s. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(4):1179-83. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der455. View

Gupta P, Banker M, Patel P, Joshi B . A study of recipient related predictors of success in oocyte donation program. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013; 5(3):252-7. PMC: 3604831. DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.106336. View

Devesa-Peiro A, Sebastian-Leon P, Parraga-Leo A, Pellicer A, Diaz-Gimeno P . Breaking the ageing paradigm in endometrium: endometrial gene expression related to cilia and ageing hallmarks in women over 35 years. Hum Reprod. 2022; 37(4):762-776. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac010. View

Fuchs F, Monet B, Ducruet T, Chaillet N, Audibert F . Effect of maternal age on the risk of preterm birth: A large cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(1):e0191002. PMC: 5791955. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191002. View

Martin J, Hamilton B, Osterman M, Driscoll A . Births: Final Data for 2019. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2021; 70(2):1-51. View

Guarga Montori M, Alvarez Martinez A, Luna Alvarez C, Abadia Cuchi N, Mateo Alcala P, Ruiz-Martinez S . Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A cohort study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 60(1):119-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2020.11.018. View

Hodes-Wertz B, Noyes N, Mullin C, McCaffrey C, Grifo J . Retrospective analysis of outcomes following transfer of previously cryopreserved oocytes, pronuclear zygotes and supernumerary blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23(1):118-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.03.020. View

10.

Cascante S, Blakemore J, DeVore S, Hodes-Wertz B, Fino M, Berkeley A . Fifteen years of autologous oocyte thaw outcomes from a large university-based fertility center. Fertil Steril. 2022; 118(1):158-166. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.04.013. View

11.

Sanders K, Silvestri G, Gordon T, Griffin D . Analysis of IVF live birth outcomes with and without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority data collection 2016-2018. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(12):3277-3285. PMC: 8666405. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02349-0. View

12.

Irani M, Zaninovic N, Rosenwaks Z, Xu K . Does maternal age at retrieval influence the implantation potential of euploid blastocysts?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 220(4):379.e1-379.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1103. View

13.

Liss J, Pastuszek E, Pukszta S, Hoffmann E, Kuczynski W, Lukaszuk A . Effect of next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing on live birth ratio. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2018; 30(12):1720-1727. DOI: 10.1071/RD17428. View

14.

Grifo J, Noyes N . Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2009; 93(2):391-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.067. View

15.

Lv H, Zhao G, Jiang P, Wang H, Wang Z, Yao S . Deciphering the endometrial niche of human thin endometrium at single-cell resolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022; 119(8). PMC: 8872762. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2115912119. View

16.

Harton G, Munne S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh D . Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(6):1695-703. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.2002. View

17.

Soares S, Troncoso C, Bosch E, Serra V, Simon C, Remohi J . Age and uterine receptiveness: predicting the outcome of oocyte donation cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90(7):4399-404. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-2252. View

18.

Chemerinski A, Garcia de Paredes J, Blackledge K, Douglas N, Morelli S . Mechanisms of endometrial aging: lessons from natural conceptions and assisted reproductive technology cycles. Front Physiol. 2024; 15:1332946. PMC: 10933110. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1332946. View

19.

Abdalla H, Wren M, Thomas A, Korea L . Age of the uterus does not affect pregnancy or implantation rates; a study of egg donation in women of different ages sharing oocytes from the same donor. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12(4):827-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/12.4.827. View

20.

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