2007PubMedRequires access

[Comparison of vitrification and slow-freezing of human day 3 cleavage stage embryos: post-vitrification development and pregnancy outcomes].

Yuan Li, Zi‐Jiang Chen, Huijun Yang, Wanxia Zhong, Shuiying Ma, Mei Li

Open publisher page 27 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of vitrification with slow-freezing on the developmental ability of day 3 cleavage stage embryos. METHODS: Patients who had no less than 4 high quality embryos were included in this study. These embryos were cryopreserved using the methods of vitrification or slow-freezing. In the cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles, the embryos which were cryopreserved using one of the methods were chosen randomly. The developmental ability of embryos was compared between these two groups. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were included in this study with 160 embryos. In the group of slow-freezing, 73 (91%) embryos were survived and achieved 15 (38%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 3 were twins and the implantation rate was 25% (18/73). In the group of vitrification, 71 (89%) embryos were survived and achieved 19 (48%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 9 were twins and the implantation rate was 39% (28/71), which was significantly higher than the slow-freezing group (P < 0.05). Otherwise, the clinical pregnant rate and multiple pregnant rate was higher in the group of vitrification than the slow-freezing group, but had no significance. CONCLUSION: Vitrification is more benefit for the developmental ability of the thawed embryos and more suitable for the cryopreservation of day 3 cleavage stage embryos.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of vitrification with slow-freezing on the developmental ability of day 3 cleavage stage embryos. METHODS: Patients who had no less than 4 high quality embryos were included in this study. These embryos were cryopreserved using the methods of vitrification or slow-freezing. In the cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles, the embryos which were cryopreserved using one of the methods were chosen randomly. The developmental ability of embryos was compared between these two groups. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were included in this study with 160 embryos. In the group of slow-freezing, 73 (91%) embryos were survived and achieved 15 (38%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 3 were twins and the implantation rate was 25% (18/73). In the group of vitrification, 71 (89%) embryos were survived and achieved 19 (48%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 9 were twins and the implantation rate was 39% (28/71), which was significantly higher than the slow-freezing group (P < 0.05). Otherwise, the clinical pregnant rate and multiple pregnant rate was higher in the group of vitrification than the slow-freezing group, but had no significance. CONCLUSION: Vitrification is more benefit for the developmental ability of the thawed embryos and more suitable for the cryopreservation of day 3 cleavage stage embryos.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 27 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of vitrification with slow-freezing on the developmental ability of day 3 cleavage stage embryos. METHODS: Patients who had no less than 4 high quality embryos were included in this study. These embryos were cryopreserved using the methods of vitrification or slow-freezing. In the cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles, the embryos which were cryopreserved using one of the methods were chosen randomly. The developmental ability of embryos was compared between these two groups. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were included in this study with 160 embryos. In the group of slow-freezing, 73 (91%) embryos were survived and achieved 15 (38%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 3 were twins and the implantation rate was 25% (18/73). In the group of vitrification, 71 (89%) embryos were survived and achieved 19 (48%) clinical pregnancies. Among these, 9 were twins and the implantation rate was 39% (28/71), which was significantly higher than the slow-freezing group (P < 0.05). Otherwise, the clinical pregnant rate and multiple pregnant rate was higher in the group of vitrification than the slow-freezing group, but had no significance. CONCLUSION: Vitrification is more benefit for the developmental ability of the thawed embryos and more suitable for the cryopreservation of day 3 cleavage stage embryos.

Key concepts: Vitrification, Cryopreservation, Embryo, Andrology, Embryo transfer, Embryo cryopreservation, Pregnancy rate, Pregnancy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Comparison of vitrification and slow-freezing of human day 3 cleavage stage embryos: post-vitrification development and pregnancy outcomes]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens