The Human Oocyte Preservation Experience (HOPE) Registry: evaluation of cryopreservation techniques and oocyte source on outcomes

Zsolt Peter Nagy, Robert E Anderson, Eve C Feinberg, Brooke Hayward, Mary C Mahony, Zsolt Peter Nagy, Robert E Anderson, Eve C Feinberg, Brooke Hayward, Mary C Mahony

Abstract

Background: This prospective, Phase IV, multicenter, observational registry of assisted reproductive technology clinics in the USA studied outcomes of first cycles using thawed/warmed cryopreserved (by slow-freezing/vitrification) oocytes (autologous or donor).

Methods: Patients were followed up through implantation, clinical pregnancy, and birth outcomes. The main outcome measure was live birth rate (LBR), defined as the ratio of live births to oocytes thawed/warmed minus the number of embryos cryopreserved for each cycle, averaged over all thawing cycles. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was also evaluated, and was defined as the presence of a fetal sac with heart activity, as detected by ultrasound scan performed on Day 35-42 after embryo transfer.

Results: A total of 16 centers enrolled 204 patients; data from 193 patients were available for analyses. For donor oocytes, in the slow-freezing (n = 40) versus vitrification (n = 94) groups, respectively, CPR and LBR were significantly different: 32.4% versus 62.6%, and 25.0% versus 52.1%; outcomes from Day 3 transfers did not differ significantly. For vitrified oocytes, in the autologous (n = 46) versus donor (n = 94) group, respectively, CPR and LBR were significantly different: 30.0% versus 62.6% and 17.4% versus 52.1%. This was largely due to a significant difference in CPR with Day 5/6 transfers.

Conclusions: In two subgroup data analyses, in women who received cryopreserved oocytes from donors, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in cycles using oocytes cryopreserved via vitrification versus slow-freezing, reflecting differences in methodologies and more Day 5/6 transfers; in women who received vitrified oocytes, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in cycles using donor versus autologous oocytes with Day 5/6 transfers.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00699400 . Registered June 13, 2008.

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology; Autologous oocytes; Donor oocytes; Slow-freezing; Vitrification.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient disposition: a all patients enrolled in Registry; b donor oocyte and vitrification subgroup analyses. Patients included in the donor oocyte subgroup analysis are circled with a solid line and those included in the vitrification subgroup analysis are circled with a dashed line. a Pre-freeze discontinuation patients denotes enrolled patients who were withdrawn before oocyte retrieval or for whom oocyte retrieval failed (ie, patients who had no oocytes to freeze)

References

    1. Cobo A, Domingo J, Perez S, Crespo J, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Vitrification: an effective new approach to oocyte banking and preserving fertility in cancer patients. Clin Transl Oncol. 2008;10:268–73. doi: 10.1007/s12094-008-0196-7.
    1. Oktay K, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Sahin G. Fertility preservation by ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation in a 14-year-old adolescent with Turner syndrome mosaicism and impending premature ovarian failure. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:753–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.01.044.
    1. Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco JA, Domingo J, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Is vitrification of oocytes useful for fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline and in cancer patients? Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1485–95. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.050.
    1. Hirshfeld-Cytron J, Grobman WA, Milad MP. Fertility preservation for social indications: a cost-based decision analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:665–70. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.029.
    1. Chang CC, Elliott TA, Wright G, Shapiro DB, Toledo AA, Nagy ZP. Prospective controlled study to evaluate laboratory and clinical outcomes of oocyte vitrification obtained in in vitro fertilization patients aged 30 to 39 years. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1891–7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.008.
    1. Rienzi L, Cobo A, Paffoni A, Scarduelli C, Capalbo A, Vajta G, Remohi J, Ragni G, Ubaldi FM. Consistent and predictable delivery rates after oocyte vitrification: an observational longitudinal cohort multicentric study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1606–12. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des088.
    1. Cobo A, Remohi J, Chang CC, Nagy ZP. Oocyte cryopreservation for donor egg banking. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:341–6. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.05.014.
    1. Nagy ZP, Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Bernal DP, Elsner CW, Mitchell-Leef D, Toledo AA, Kort HI. Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:520–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.06.005.
    1. Chen C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet. 1986;1:884–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90989-X.
    1. Kuleshova L, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Ferraretti A, Trounson A. Birth following vitrification of a small number of human oocytes: case report. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:3077–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.12.3077.
    1. Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Kato O, Leibo SP. Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:300–8. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60837-1.
    1. Rudick B, Opper N, Paulson R, Bendikson K, Chung K. The status of oocyte cryopreservation in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2642–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.079.
    1. Ezcurra D, Rangnow J, Craig M, Schertz J. The HOPE Registry: first US registry for oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:743–4. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60399-9.
    1. Nagy ZP, Nel-Themaat L, Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Berna DP. Cryopreservation of eggs. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1154:439–54. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0659-8_20.
    1. Vajta G, Nagy ZP. Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:779–96. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61091-7.
    1. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technolog Ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S241–S246.
    1. Chang CC, Lin CJ, Sung LY, Kort HI, Tian XC, Nagy ZP. Impact of phase transition on the mouse oocyte spindle during vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:184–91. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.10.009.
    1. Forman EJ, Li X, Ferry KM, Scott K, Treff NR, Scott RT., Jr Oocyte vitrification does not increase the risk of embryonic aneuploidy or diminish the implantation potential of blastocysts created after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel, paired randomized controlled trial using DNA fingerprinting. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:644–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.04.028.
    1. Gardner DK, Sheehan CB, Rienzi L, Katz-Jaffe M, Larman MG. Analysis of oocyte physiology to improve cryopreservation procedures. Theriogenology. 2007;67:64–72. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.012.
    1. Gook DA, Osborn SM, Bourne H, Johnston WI. Fertilization of human oocytes following cryopreservation; normal karyotypes and absence of stray chromosomes. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:684–91.
    1. Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.028.
    1. Dondorp W, de Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, Barri P, Diedrich K. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1231–7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des029.
    1. Levi Setti PE, Porcu E, Patrizio P, Vigiliano V, de Luca R, D’Aloja P, Spoletini R, Scaravelli G. Human oocyte cryopreservation with slow freezing versus vitrification. Results from the National Italian Registry data, 2007–2011. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:90–5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.052.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology . 2008 assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
    1. Debrock S, Peeraer K, Fernandez GE, De Neubourg D, Spiessens C, D’Hooghe TM. Vitrification of cleavage stage day 3 embryos results in higher live birth rates than conventional slow freezing: a RCT. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1820–30.
    1. Marek D, Langley M, Gardner DK, Confer N, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1035–40. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00409-4.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology . 2009 assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic reports. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
    1. Padilla SL, Garcia JE. Effect of maternal age and number of in vitro fertilization procedures on pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 1989;52:270–3. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60854-3.
    1. Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1139–46.
    1. Paramanantham J, Talmor AJ, Osianlis T, Weston GC. Cryopreserved oocytes: update on clinical applications and success rates. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70:97–114. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000152.
    1. Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2239–46. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq146.
    1. Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:769–76. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60025-9.
    1. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Kupka M, Bhattacharya S, de Mouzon J, Castilla JA, Erb K, Korsak V, Nyboe AA. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2318–31. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det278.
    1. Wang YA, Macaldowie A, Hayward I, Chambers GM, Sullivan EM. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2009. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. . Accessed 23 Sep 2016.
    1. Bühler K, Bals-Pratsch M, Blumenauer V, Dahncke W, Felberbaum R, Fiedler K, Gnoth C, Happel L, Krüssel MS, Kupka M, Wendelken M. DIR Annual 2010 - German IVF-Registry. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol. 2011;8:253–80.
    1. Limoni C. FIVNAT-CH. Annual Report 2011. Cycles 2010. Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Reproduktionsmedizin, Société Suisse de Médecine de la Reproduction; 2012.
    1. No authors listed. French National IVF Registry: analysis of 1986 to 1990 data. FIVNAT (French In Vitro National). Fertil Steril. 1993;59:587-95.
    1. Garrido N, Bellver J, Remohi J, Simon C, Pellicer A. Cumulative live-birth rates per total number of embryos needed to reach newborn in consecutive in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles: a new approach to measuring the likelihood of IVF success. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:40–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.008.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj