Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles
Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles
复制标题
当应用于第 3 天胚胎冷冻保存时，慢速冷冻不应完全被玻璃化替代：对 5613 个冷冻周期的分析
DOI：
10.1007/s10815-015-0545-8
复制
发表时间：
2015-09-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Zhang, Song-Ying
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhu, Hai-Yan;Xue, Ya-Mei;Zhang, Song-Ying
PurposeThis study aims to comparison slow freezing（SF）and vitrification（VT）techniques for day 3 embryo cryopreservation in infertile couples.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study enrolled 5613不孕症患者，7862冷冻解冻的第3天胚胎和3845玻璃化加热的第3天胚胎，从2010年到2014年，在一个单一的中心。胚胎存活率，妊娠率，种植率，流产率，活产率和活产体重进行了比较。使用SF，总体胚胎存活率和完全完整的卵裂球率低于VT（分别为91.5%和97.4%，68.7%和92.3%）。SF组解冻/复温后的优质胚胎率低于VT组。在单次冷冻胚胎移植周期（FET）中，两组的妊娠率和着床率相似（分别为35.0%和40.8%，34.6%和35.9%）。在双FET中，两组之间每个周期的妊娠率也相似（58.8% vs. 58.4%）。SF组的每次胚胎移植植入率显著高于VT组（38.8% vs. 34.6%）。校正母体年龄和优质胚胎数量后，种植率差异仍具有显著性（校正P值，SF vs. VTP< 0.05）。未发现冷冻保存方法对妊娠率的独立影响。流产率，活产率，活产体重之间没有显着差异，观察两种technology.ConclusionsDespite显着低胚胎存活率，完整的卵裂球率，优质胚胎率SF，妊娠率和着床率没有受到不利影响，在单，双FET。与VT相比，SF的流产率、活产率和活产体重相等。冷冻保存第3天胚胎的SF方案仍应考虑。
PurposeThis study aimed to compare slow freezing (SF) and vitrification (VT) techniques for day 3 embryo cryopreservation in infertile couples.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study enrolled 5613 infertile patients, with 7862 frozen-thawed day 3 embryos and 3845 vitrified-warmed day 3 embryos, from 2010 to 2014, at a single center. The rates of embryo survival, pregnancy, implantation, miscarriage, live birth, and live birth weight were compared between the two groups.ResultsA total of 5613 cycles with 5520 transfers were analyzed. Using SF, the rates of overall embryo survival and fully intact blastomeres were lower than those in VT (91.5 vs. 97.4 % and 68.7 vs. 92.3 %, respectively). The rate of good quality embryos after thawing/warming was lower in SF than in VT. In single frozen embryo transfer cycles (FETs), the pregnancy and implantation rates were similar between the two groups (35.0 vs. 40.8 % and 34.6 vs. 35.9 %, respectively). In double FETs, the pregnancy rate per cycle was also similar between the groups (58.8 vs. 58.4 %). The implantation rate per embryo transfer was significantly higher with SF than with VT (38.8 vs. 34.6 %). With adjustment for maternal age and the number of good quality embryos, differences in implantation rate remained significant (adjustedPvalue, SF vs. VTP< 0.05). No independent effect was found for the method of cryopreservation on the pregnancy rate. No significant differences in the rates of miscarriage, live birth, and live birth weight were observed between the two techniques.ConclusionsDespite the significantly low embryo survival rate, fully intact blastomere rate, and good quality embryo rate in SF, the pregnancy and implantation rates were not adversely affected in single and double FETs. SF yielded an equivalent miscarriage rate, live birth rate, and live birth weight compared with VT. The SF protocol to cryopreserve day 3 embryos still should be considered.