Clinical application of oocyte vitrification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
TL;DR: Vitrification is an efficient method to preserve oocytes, although more large controlled clinical trials are needed to strengthen this conclusion.
About: This article is published in Fertility and Sterility.The article was published on 2011-08-01. It has received 360 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Embryo transfer & Pregnancy rate.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos is provided to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method. SEARCH METHODS A Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. OUTCOMES One RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05-7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71-4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies. Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00-3.59; P = 0.051; three RCTs; I2 = 71.9%). LBR per cycle was reported by one RCT performed with cleavage-stage embryos and was higher for vitrification (RR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.17-4.44; P = 0.016; 216 cycles; one RCT). A secondary analysis was performed focusing on embryo cryosurvival rate. Pooled data from seven RCTs (3615 embryos) revealed a significant improvement in embryo cryosurvival following vitrification as compared with slow-freezing (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30-1.93; P < 0.001; I2 = 93%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS Data from available RCTs suggest that vitrification/warming is superior to slow-freezing/thawing with regard to clinical outcomes (low quality of the evidence) and cryosurvival rates (moderate quality of the evidence) for oocytes, cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. The results were confirmed by cohort studies. The improvements obtained with the introduction of vitrification have several important clinical implications in ART. Based on this evidence, in particular regarding cryosurvival rates, laboratories that continue to use slow-freezing should consider transitioning to the use of vitrification for cryopreservation.
476 citations
TL;DR: At least 8-10 metaphase II oocytes are necessary to achieve reasonable success in elective fertility preservation and numbers should be individualized in women >36 years old.
369 citations
TL;DR: Fertility preservation needs to be completed before chemotherapy and/or irradiation is started and might take 2–3 weeks with established techniques such as embryo or oocyte cryopreservation, but further studies are needed in patients with cancer to confirm the excellent outcomes obtained in patients without cancer or in egg donation programmes.
Abstract: In women, ∼10% of cancers occur in those 90% of girls and young women with diseases that require such treatments. However, these treatments can result in premature ovarian failure, depending on the follicular reserve, the age of the patient and the type and dose of drugs used. This article discusses the different fertility preservation strategies: medical therapy before chemotherapy; ovarian transposition; embryo cryopreservation; oocyte vitrification; and ovarian tissue cryopreservation. The indications, results and risks of these options are discussed. Whether medical therapy should be used to protect the gonads during chemotherapy remains a source of debate. Fertility preservation needs to be completed before chemotherapy and/or irradiation is started and might take 2-3 weeks with established techniques such as embryo or oocyte cryopreservation. Further studies are needed in patients with cancer to confirm the excellent outcomes obtained in patients without cancer or in egg donation programmes. For prepubertal girls or cases where immediate therapy is required, cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is the only available option. Finally, possible future approaches are reviewed, including in vitro maturation of nonantral follicles, the artificial ovary, oogonial stem cells and drugs to prevent follicle loss.
359 citations
TL;DR: An enhanced understanding of ovarian ageing will facilitate early identification of individuals at greatest risk, and novel therapeutic interventions in female reproductive ageing at present.
Abstract: BACKGROUND
Advanced maternal age is associated with reduced fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes. This review details recent developments in our understanding of the biology and mechanisms underlying reproductive ageing in women and the implications for fertility and pregnancy.
210 citations
Cites background from "Clinical application of oocyte vitr..."
...The increasing use of oocyte vitrification has advantages, with improved post-thaw viability, fertilization and clinical pregnancy rates when compared with slow freezing (Smith et al., 2010; Cobo and Diaz, 2011)....
[...]
...Studies such as these move us closer towards the application of stem cell-based regenerative medicine and the possibility that this may 1 day become a safe and effective strategy to control the timing of age-related ovarian failure and menopause when it might be clinically desirable to do so....
[...]
TL;DR: The success rate of oocyte cryopreservation has risen, and the increasing use of vitrification offers has improved outcomes, with IVF pregnancy rates now similar to those achieved with fresh oocytes.
Abstract: Introduction Since the first live birth from oocyte cryopreservation three decades ago, oocyte cryopreservation has become an important component of ART. Cryopreservation techniques have evolved, leading to higher success rates and the introduction of oocyte cryopreservation into IVF clinics worldwide. Concurrently, there has been an increase in patient demand, especially for so-called 'social egg freezing' that allows women to preserve their fertility in anticipation of age-related fertility decline. This review addresses a need to evaluate the current status of oocyte cryopreservation. It explores current techniques and success rates, clinical applications, the rise of elective oocyte cryopreservation, and future implications. Methods A search was performed using Web of Science and PubMed databases for publications between January 1980 and December 2015. Keywords used included 'egg freezing', 'oocyte freezing', 'oocyte cryopreservation', 'oocyte vitrification', and 'fertility preservation'. Results The success rate of oocyte cryopreservation has risen, and the increasing use of vitrification offers has improved outcomes, with IVF pregnancy rates now similar to those achieved with fresh oocytes. There are conflicting opinions about the comparative success rates of open and closed vitrification. Patients are accessing and receiving oocyte cryopreservation for a wide range of indications, and there has been a marked increase in patient numbers and oocyte cryopreservation cycles. Oocyte cryopreservation for circumventing age-related infertility is becoming more widely accepted. Conclusion Oocyte cryopreservation is an established component of ART, with vitrification now being the cryopreservation technique of choice. Increasing numbers of women undergo oocyte cryopreservation for both medical and social reasons. It is important to continue auditing outcomes and reporting long-term follow-up of children born from frozen-thawed oocytes.
207 citations
Cites methods from "Clinical application of oocyte vitr..."
...A recent meta-analysis of five studies found that the rates of fertilization, embryo cleavage, high quality embryos and ongoing pregnancy did not differ between vitrification and fresh oocyte groups (Cobo and Diaz, 2011)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
TL;DR: The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
13,813 citations
TL;DR: The results suggest that vitrification using the Cryotop is the most efficient method for human oocyte cryopreservation.
Abstract: Two experiments were performed to develop a method to cryopreserve MII human oocytes. In the first experiment, three vitrification methods were compared using bovine MII oocytes with regard to their developmental competence after cryopreservation: (i) vitrification within 0.25-ml plastic straws followed by in-straw dilution after warming (ISD method); (ii) vitrification in open-pulled straws (OPS method); and (iii) vitrification in <0.1 microl medium droplet on the surface of a specially constructed fine polypropylene strip attached to a plastic handle (Cryotop method). In the second experiment, the Cryotop method, which had yielded the best results, was used to vitrify human oocytes. Out of 64 vitrified oocytes, 58 (91%) exhibited normal morphology after warming. After intracytoplasmic sperm injection, 52 became fertilized, and 32 (50%) developed to the blastocyst stage in vitro. Analysis by fluorescence in-situ hybridization of five blastocysts showed that all were normal diploid embryos. Twenty-nine embryo transfers with a mean number of 2.2 embryos per transfer on days 2 and 5 resulted in 12 initial pregnancies, seven healthy babies and three ongoing pregnancies. The results suggest that vitrification using the Cryotop is the most efficient method for human oocyte cryopreservation.
1,079 citations
TL;DR: The Cryotop method preserves the potential of vitrified oocytes to fertilize and further develop, which is similar, when evaluated simultaneously, to fresh counterparts, indicating the possible use of this technology for egg donation programs, as well as a high potential for establishing oocyte banking.
486 citations
TL;DR: This controlled-randomized, clinical trial confirmed the effectiveness of oocyte cryo-storage in an ovum donation programme, failing to demonstrate the superiority of using fresh oocytes with respect to the use of vitrified egg-banked ones in terms of OPR, but instead confirmed the non-inferiority of Vitrified oocytes.
Abstract: background: An efficient oocyte cryopreservation method is mandatory to establish a successful egg-banking programme. Although there are increasing reports showing good clinical outcomes after oocyte cryopreservation, there is still a lack of large controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of oocyte cryo-banking. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcome of vitrified-banked oocytes with the gold standard procedure of employing fresh oocytes. methods: A randomized, prospective, triple-blind, single-centre, parallel-group controlled-clinical trial (NCT00785993), including 600 recipients (a ¼ 0.05 and power of 80% for sample-size calculation) selected among 1032 eligible patients from November 2008 to September 2009, was designed to compare the outcome of vitrified-banked oocytes with the gold standard procedure of employing fresh oocytes. The study was designed to establish the superiority of the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) of fresh oocytes over that of vitrified oocytes, by performing a likelihood ratio test in a logistic regression analysis expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A limit of 0.66 for OR of vitrified versus fresh groups was defined to set up a possible conversion from superiority to non-inferiority. Randomization was performed 1:1 based on a computer randomization list in vitrification (n ¼ 300) or fresh groups (n ¼ 300). The primary end-point was the OPR per randomized patient i.e. intention-to-treat population (ITT). Secondary end-points were clinical pregnancy (CPR), implantation (IR) and fertilization rates, respectively. Additionally, embryo developmental characteristics were recorded. results: There were no differences in donor ovarian stimulation parameters, demographic baseline characteristics for donors and recipients, ovum donation indications or male factor distribution between groups (NS). The OPR per ITT was 43.7 and 41.7% in the vitrification and fresh groups, respectively. The OR of OPR was 0.921 in favour of the vitrification group. Nevertheless, the 95% CI was 0.667–1.274, thus the superiority of fresh group with respect to OPR was not proven (P ¼ 0.744). Non-inferiority of the vitrified group compared with the fresh group was shown with a margin of 0.667, which was above the pre-established non-inferiority limit of 0.66. CPR per cycle (50.2 versus 49.8%; P ¼ 0.933) or per embryo-transfer (55.4 versus 55.6% ; P ¼ 0.974), and IR (39.9 versus 40.9%; P ¼ 0.745) were similar for patients receiving either vitrified or fresh oocytes. The proportion of top-quality embryos obtained either by inseminated oocyte (30.8 versus 30.8% for Day-2; and 36.1 versus 37.7% for Day-3, respectively) or by cleaved embryos (43.6 versus 43.8% for Day-2 and 58.4 versus 60.7% for Day-3, respectively) was similar between groups (NS). conclusions: This controlled-randomized, clinical trial confirmed the effectiveness of oocyte cryo-storage in an ovum donation programme, failing to demonstrate the superiority of using fresh oocytes with respect to the use of vitrified egg-banked ones in terms of OPR. Instead, the non-inferiority of vitrified oocytes was confirmed. These findings involve highly relevant issues that may open a new range of possibilities in ART. Clinical Trials identifier: www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT 00785993.
455 citations
"Clinical application of oocyte vitr..." refers background in this paper
...[6] Sample size calculation was not stated in one of the studies (33), and it was unclear in another (34) (Table 3)....
[...]