Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:33:16.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the number of embryos loaded on a single cryo-carrier affect post-vitrification survival rate?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2020

Adva Aizer ,
Meirav Noach-Hirsh ,
Olga Dratviman-Storobinsky ,
Jigal Haas  and
Raoul Orvieto Open the ORCID record for Raoul Orvieto [Opens in a new window]
Adva Aizer*
Affiliation:
Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Meirav Noach-Hirsh
Affiliation:
Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Olga Dratviman-Storobinsky
Affiliation:
Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Jigal Haas
Affiliation:
Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Raoul Orvieto
Affiliation:
Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel The Tarnesby-Tarnowski Chair for Family Planning and Fertility Regulation, at the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
*
Author for correspondence: Adva Aizer. Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. E-mail: adva.aizer@sheba.health.gov.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

We aimed to assess whether the survival rate of embryos is influenced by the number of embryos/oocytes loaded on a single cryo-carrier during vitrification.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study that included 974 patients who underwent thawing of 1896 embryo-warming cycles between September 2016 and January 2020. A distinct analysis was made for cleavage stage embryos (2–10-cell stage) and blastocysts. For vitrification, embryos were placed in a Cryotop™ open device using a SAGE vitrification kit following the manufacturer’s instructions. Warming was carried using a SAGE warming vitrification kit according the manufacturer’s instructions.

Results:

Total post-vitrification survival rates of embryos at the cleavage stage or blastocyst stage was 94.8%. At the cleavage stage, cryo-preserving three embryos per single cryo-carrier gave the highest full intact embryo survival rate (91.5%) compared with one or two embryo(s) per single cryo-carrier (85.7%, P < 0.0002 and 87.3%, P < 0.004). Conversely, post warmed full intact blastocyst survival rate for two blastocysts was significantly lower compared with one blastocyst (76.7% vs. 87.9%, P < 0.0193) per single cryo-carrier.

Conclusion:

Post-thawing survival rate following vitrification is affected by the number of embryos per single cryo-carrier undergoing the vitrification equilibration phase, with the optimum number of three cleaved embryos or one blastocyst per single cryo-carrier. Further studies are required to determine the optimum number of cleaved embryos or blastocysts that should be loaded onto a single cryo-carrier vitrification device.

Keywords

Cryo-carrierCryopreservationCryotopStrawSurvival rateVitrification
Type
Short Communication
Information
Zygote , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 87 - 91
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alpha Scientists In Reproductive Medicine (2012). The Alpha consensus meeting on cryopreservation key performance indicators and benchmarks: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 25, 146–67.Google Scholar
Arav, A (2014). Cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos. Theriogenology 81, 96–102.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.09.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnay, I, Van Langendonckt, A, Auquier, P, Grisart, B, Vansteenbrugge, A, Massip, A and Dessy, F (1997). Effects of co-culture and embryo number on the in vitro development of bovine embryos. Theriogenology 47, 1549–61.10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00160-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebner, T, Shebl, O, Moser, M, Mayer, RB, Arzt, W and Tews, G (2010). Group culture of human zygotes is superior to individual culture in terms of blastulation, implantation and life birth. Reprod Biomed Online 21, 762–8.10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine (2017). The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod Biomed Online 35, 494–510.10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, BJ (2004). Cryoprotectants: the essential antifreezes to protect life in the frozen state. Cryo Lett 25, 375–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T and Schoolcraft, WB (2000). Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 73, 1155–8.10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00518-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, WK, Roelen, BA, Colenbrander, B and Stout, TAE (2015). Cellular damage suffered by equine embryos after exposure to cryoprotectants or cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification. Equine Vet J 47, 701–7.10.1111/evj.12341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinhans, FW (1998). Membrane permeability modeling: Kedem-Katchalsky vs a two-parameter formalism. Cryobiology 37, 271–89.10.1006/cryo.1998.2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuwayama, M, Vajta, G, Kato, O and Leibo, SP (2005). Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 11, 300–8.10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60837-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, M, Bavister, BD, Lyons, EA and Forest, KT (1999). Containerless vitrification of mammalian oocytes and embryos. Nat Biotechnol 17, 1234–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehner, A, Kaszas, Z, Murber, A, Rigo, J Jr, Urbancsek, J and Fancsovits, P (2017). Embryo density may affect embryo quality during in vitro culture in a microwell group culture dish. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296, 345–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, TK, Su, JT, Lee, FK, Lin, Y-R and Lo, H-C (2010). Cryotop vitrification as compared with conventional slow freezing for human embryos at the cleavage stage: survival and outcomes. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 49, 272–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Doherty, EM, Wade, MG, Hill, JL and Boland, MP (1997). Effects of culturing bovine oocytes either singly or in groups on development to blastocysts. Theriogenology 48, 161–9.10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00199-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, ML (2012). Culture systems: embryo density. In Smith, GD, Swain, JE and Pool, TB (eds) Embryo Culture. Humana Press, New York City, pp 273–312.10.1007/978-1-61779-971-6_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rienzi, L, Gracia, C, Maggiulli, R, LaBarbera, A, Kaser, DJ, Ubaldi, FM, Vanderpoel, S and Racowsky, C (2016). Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update 23, 139–55.Google Scholar
Saragusty, J and Arav, A (2011). Current progress in oocyte and embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing and vitrification. Reproduction 141, 1–19.10.1530/REP-10-0236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trounson, A and Mohr, L (1983). Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature 305(5936), 707–9.10.1038/305707a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vajta, G and Kuwayama, M (2006). Improving cryopreservation systems. Theriogenology 65, 236–44.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.09.026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zacà, C and Borini, A (2017). Chapter 8 Human oocytes slow-rate freezing: methodology. Methods Mol Biol 1568, 105–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeilmaker, GH, Alberda, AT, van Gent, I, Rijkmans, CM and Drogendijk, AC (1984). Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen–thawed embryos. Fertil Steril 42, 293–6.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)48029-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed