A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Purpose To compare two different vitrification methods to slow freezing method for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos. Design: Prospective randomised trial. Setting: University assisted reproduction centre. Patient(s): 568 patients (mean age 33.4 ± 5.2) from April 2009 to April 2011. Methods 1798 supernumerary good-quality cleavage stage embryos in 645 IVF cycles intended to be cryopreserved were randomly allocated to three groups: slow freezing, vitrification with the Irvine® method, vitrification with the Vitrolife® method. Main Outcome Measure(s): Embryo survival and cleavage rates, implantation rate. Results A total of 1055 embryos were warmed, 836 (79.2 %) survived and 676 were finally transferred (64.1 %). Post-warming embryos survival rate was significantly higher after vitrification (Irvine: 89.4 %; Vitrolife: 87.6 %) than after slow freezing (63.8 %) (p < 0.001). No differences in survival rates were observed between the two vitrification methods, but a significant higher cleavage rate was observed using Irvine compared to Vitrolife method (p < 0.05). Implantation rate (IR) per embryo replaced and per embryo warmed were respectively 15.8 % (41/259) and 12.4 % (41/330) for Irvine, 17.0 % (40/235) and 12.1 % (40/330) for Vitrolife, 21.4 % (39/182) and 9.9 % (39/395) for slow-freezing (NS). Conclusions Both vitrification methods (Irvine and Vitrolife) are more efficient than slow freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos in terms of post-warming survival rate. No significant difference in the implantation rate was observed between the three cryopreservation methods.

This publication has 47 references indexed in Scilit: