Embryo Cryopreservation: What Do Couples Think About It?

Overview

Journal JBRA Assist Reprod

Date 2025 Jan 21

PMID 39835793

Authors

Julia Picinato Medeiros de Araujo Rocha

Carolina Gennari Verruma

Ana Luiza Camargos Morato

Maria Cristina Picinato

Rui Alberto Ferriani

Rosana Maria Dos Reis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the perspectives of infertile couples regarding embryo cryopreservation throughout assisted reproduction treatment.

Methods: The convenience sample included infertile couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. They responded to a questionnaire specifically designed to gauge views and opinions on cryopreservation of surplus embryos. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS, employing the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests (p<0.05).

Results: The study included 187 couples, with average ages of 35 years for women and 38 years for men. A total of 182 couples (97.3%) agreed with the practice of freezing surplus embryos and, the desire to increase the odds of pregnancy within the same ovarian stimulation cycle was the main motivation (89%). Almost 40% of participants said they might consider embryo donation to other couples for assisted reproductive treatment. However, less than 20% of volunteers (15.38% of women and 12.08% of men) expressed the desire to donate for research purposes. Women with higher levels of education were significantly (p<0.05) more likely to support the donation of surplus embryos for research. Gender, religion, and education did not influence (p>0.05) the respondents' perspectives regarding the beginning of life and posthumous conception.

Conclusions: Embryo cryopreservation provides infertile couples with hope however, the fate of surplus embryos remains controversial. A careful approach with appropriate regulation is necessary to ensure safe and ethical practices.

References

Yue Z, MacKellar C . A quantitative analysis of stored frozen surplus embryos in the UK. New Bioeth. 2024; 30(3):173-190. DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2024.2354979. View

Nagy Z, Shapiro D, Chang C . Vitrification of the human embryo: a more efficient and safer in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2020; 113(2):241-247. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.12.009. View

Adamczyk A, Suh B, Lerner L . Analysis of the relationship between religion, abortion, and assisted reproductive technology: Insights into cross-national public opinion. Soc Sci Res. 2024; 120:103012. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2024.103012. View

Bayefsky M, Sampson A, Blakemore J, Jalili D, Lilly A, Fino M . Experiences and intentions of patients undergoing medically indicated oocyte or embryo cryopreservation: a qualitative study. Hum Reprod. 2023; 39(1):147-153. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead228. View

Paulson R . It is worth repeating: "life begins at conception" is a religious, not scientific, concept. F S Rep. 2022; 3(3):177. PMC: 9532882. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2022.08.005. View

Sallam H, Sallam N . Religious aspects of assisted reproduction. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2016; 8(1):33-48. PMC: 5096425. View

Lee J, DeSantis C, Boulet S, Kawwass J . Embryo donation: national trends and outcomes, 2004-2019. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 228(3):318.e1-318.e7. PMC: 9975076. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.10.045. View

Alikani M . Cryostorage of human gametes and embryos: a reckoning. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018; 37(1):1-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.05.004. View

. Donating spare embryos for stem cell research. Fertil Steril. 2009; 91(3):667-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.066. View

10.

Salcuni S, Mancinelli E, Muneratti A, Grillo A, Alessi C, Guglielmino A . Couples undergoing Assisted Reproductive Techniques: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model of dyadic adjustment, attachment, and body-image avoidance. Health Psychol Open. 2021; 8(2):20551029211039923. PMC: 8521762. DOI: 10.1177/20551029211039923. View

11.

Tanne J . University in Alabama halts IVF treatments after court rules embryos are children. BMJ. 2024; 384:q468. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.q468. View

12.

Dolmans M, Manavella D . Recent advances in fertility preservation. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018; 45(2):266-279. DOI: 10.1111/jog.13818. View

13.

Jang T, Park S, Yang J, Kim J, Seok J, Park U . Cryopreservation and its clinical applications. Integr Med Res. 2017; 6(1):12-18. PMC: 5395684. DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2016.12.001. View

14.

Klock S, Lindheim S . Disposition of unused cryopreserved embryos: opportunities and liabilities. Fertil Steril. 2022; 119(1):1-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.10.036. View

15.

Scully J, Haimes E, Mitzkat A, Porz R, Rehmann-Sutter C . Donating embryos to stem cell research. J Bioeth Inq. 2012; 9(1):19-28. PMC: 3714553. DOI: 10.1007/s11673-011-9352-9. View

16.

Fauser B, Boivin J, Barri P, Tarlatzis B, Schmidt L, Levy-Toledano R . Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1):e0211150. PMC: 6347360. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211150. View

17.

Feinberg E, Santoro N, Cedars M, Amato P . An egg is not a chicken and an embryo is not a child. Fertil Steril. 2024; 121(5):752-753. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.03.013. View

18.

Van Steijvoort E, Cassou M, De Schutter C, Dimitriadou E, Peeters H, Peeraer K . Exploring attitudes and experiences with reproductive genetic carrier screening among couples seeking medically assisted reproduction: a longitudinal survey study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(2):451-464. PMC: 10894802. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-03010-8. View

19.

Alexander V, Riley J, Jungheim E . Recent trends in embryo disposition choices made by patients following in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020; 37(11):2797-2804. PMC: 7642147. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-01927-y. View

20.

Zegers-Hochschild F, Dickens B, Dughman-Manzur S . Human rights to in vitro fertilization. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013; 123(1):86-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.07.001. View