We have located links that may give you full text access.
Effect of repeated vitrification of human embryos on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.
Journal of Ovarian Research 2024 Februrary 24
BACKGROUND: Repeated cryopreservation of embryos should occasionally be considered when embryos were not suitable for transfer. The effect of re-cryopreservation on embryos remains contentious.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of twice vitrificated blastocyst derived from once vitrified embryos. Total 410 vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles were divided into two groups according to the times of embryo vitrification: (1) vitrified blastocysts derived from fresh blastocysts (control group, n = 337); (2) twice vitrified blastocysts derived from once vitrified embryos (n = 73). The primary outcome was live birth rate. Multivariable logistic or linear regression analysis model was performed to describe the association between embryo cryopreservation times and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: No difference was observed in female age at retrieval and transfer, infertility period, body mass index (BMI), infertility type, endometrial thickness, and embryo transfer numbers between the two groups. The pregnancy outcomes of embryos in repeated cryopreservation group were comparable to those of embryos in control group, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the cryopreservation times did not affect the outcomes of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth. Moreover, there was no difference in gestational age, birthweight and sex ratio of singleton newborns between groups. After correcting several possible confounding variables, no significant association was observed between cryopreservation times and neonatal birthweight.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes achieved with twice vitrified blastocyst transfer were comparable to those achieved with vitrified blastocyst transfer in control group.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of twice vitrificated blastocyst derived from once vitrified embryos. Total 410 vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles were divided into two groups according to the times of embryo vitrification: (1) vitrified blastocysts derived from fresh blastocysts (control group, n = 337); (2) twice vitrified blastocysts derived from once vitrified embryos (n = 73). The primary outcome was live birth rate. Multivariable logistic or linear regression analysis model was performed to describe the association between embryo cryopreservation times and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: No difference was observed in female age at retrieval and transfer, infertility period, body mass index (BMI), infertility type, endometrial thickness, and embryo transfer numbers between the two groups. The pregnancy outcomes of embryos in repeated cryopreservation group were comparable to those of embryos in control group, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the cryopreservation times did not affect the outcomes of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth. Moreover, there was no difference in gestational age, birthweight and sex ratio of singleton newborns between groups. After correcting several possible confounding variables, no significant association was observed between cryopreservation times and neonatal birthweight.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes achieved with twice vitrified blastocyst transfer were comparable to those achieved with vitrified blastocyst transfer in control group.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Infection versus disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus patients with fever.BMC rheumatology. 2024 August 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app