Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Multiple Vitrification-Warming Procedures and Insemination Methods on Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes in Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was to determine whether multiple vitrification-warming procedures and insemination method are associated with pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study of 112 patients who underwent standard PGT-A practice and 154 patients who desired PGT-A for their vitrified unbiopsied blastocysts. A total of 97 euploid blastocysts biopsied and vitrified-warmed once and 117 euploid blastocysts biopsied once but vitrified-warmed twice (83 in vitro fertilization [IVF]–derived and 34 intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI]–derived euploid blastocysts) were transferred. The primary outcome was the blastocyst survival rate for transfer, live birth rate, and neonatal outcomes. The results showed that an additional vitrification-warming procedure on blastocysts resulted in a lower but not statistically different survival rate for transfer. Compared with euploid blastocysts vitrified-warmed once, those vitrified-warmed twice provided statistically similar live birth rate. Neonatal outcomes, including the sex ratio, gestational age, birthweight, preterm birth rate, and low birthweight rate, did not differ between single and double vitrification. No significant differences were observed in rates of blastocyst survival, blastocyst euploid and live birth, and neonatal outcomes resulting from either conventional IVF or ICSI. The neonatal follow-up of babies live-born so far did not report any congenital malformations. In conclusion, an additional vitrification-warming on blastocysts had no detectable adverse impact on clinical outcomes after frozen-thawed single euploid blastocyst transfer in PGT-A cases; and ICSI did not confer any benefit in improving clinical outcomes compared with conventional IVF in cases requiring PGT-A on already vitrified nonbiopsied blastocysts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Dahdouh EM. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a review of the evidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:528–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Neal SA, Morin SJ, Franasiak JM, Goodman LR, Juneau CR, Forman EJ, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is cost-effective, shortens treatment time, and reduces the risk of failed embryo transfer and clinical miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:896–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carvalho F, Coonen E, Goossens V, Kokkali G, Rubio C, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the organisation of PGT. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020:hoaa021.

  4. Nagy ZP, Shapiro D, Chang CC. Vitrification of the human embryo: a more efficient and safer in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:241–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cimadomo D, Rienzi L, Romanelli V, Alviggi E, Levi-Setti PE, Albani E, et al. Inconclusive chromosomal assessment after blastocyst biopsy: prevalence, causative factors and outcomes after re-biopsy and re-vitrification. A multicenter experience. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1839–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tiegs AW, Tao X, Zhan Y, Whitehead C, Kim J, Hanson B, et al. A multicenter, prospective, blinded, nonselection study evaluating the predictive value of an aneuploid diagnosis using a targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy assay and impact of biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:627–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. He H, Jing S, Lu CF, Tan YQ, Luo KL, Zhang SP, et al. Neonatal outcomes of live births after blastocyst biopsy in preimplantation genetic testing cycles: a follow-up of 1,721 children. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:82–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:723-30.e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harton GL, Magli MC, Lundin K, Montag M, Lemmen J, Harper JC. ESHRE PGD consortium/embryology special interest group–best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod. 2011;26:41–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:239–45.

  11. Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, Fischer CP, Forman EJ. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:153–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. De Munck N, El Khatib I, Abdala A, El-Damen A, Bayram A, Arnanz A, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Hum Reprod. 2020;35:317–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Michael Wilson J, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bradley CK, Livingstone M, Traversa MV, McArthur SJ. Impact of multiple blastocyst biopsy and vitrification-warming procedures on pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:999–1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, De Rycke M, Verdyck P, Verheyen G, Buysse A, et al. Multiple vitrification-warming and biopsy procedures on human embryos: clinical outcome and neonatal follow-up of children. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:2488–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aluko A, Vaughan DA, Modest AM, Penzias AS, Hacker MR, Thornton K, et al. Multiple cryopreservation-warming cycles, coupled with blastocyst biopsy, negatively affect IVF outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42:572–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shao Y, Li J, Lu J, Li H, Zhu Y, Jiang W, et al. Clinical outcomes of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) application in couples with chromosomal inversion, a study in the Chinese Han population. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18:79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mazur P. Equilibrium, quasi-equilibrium, and nonequilibrium freezing of mammalian embryos. Cell Biophys. 1990;17:53–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. RezazadehValojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Movaghar B. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:347–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Estudillo E, Jiménez A, Bustamante-Nieves PE, Palacios-Reyes C, Velasco I, López-Ornelas A. Cryopreservation of gametes and embryos and their molecular changes. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:10864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Somoskoi B, Martino NA, Cardone RA, Lacalandra GM, Dell’Aquila ME, Cseh S. Different chromatin and energy/redox responses of mouse morulae and blastocysts to slow freezing and vitrification. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Li L, Zhang X, Zhao L, Xia X, Wang W. Comparison of DNA apoptosis in mouse and human blastocysts after vitrification and slow freezing. Mol Reprod Dev. 2012;79:229–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Carles M, Sonigo C, Binois O, Hesters L, Steffann J, Romana S, et al. Second biopsy for embryos with inconclusive results after preimplantation genetic testing: impact on pregnancy outcomes. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2022;51:102436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zacchini F, Arena R, Abramik A, Ptak GE. Embryo biopsy and development: the known and the unknown. Reproduction. 2017;154:R143–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Neal SA, Sun L, Jalas C, Morin SJ, Molinaro TA, Scott RT Jr. When next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) yields an inconclusive report: diagnostic results and clinical outcomes after re biopsy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:2103–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ding M, Diao Z, Zhou J. The preimplantation genetic testing clinical outcomes of biopsy on vitrification-warming embryos: a retrospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022;48:1621–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li X, Li W, Jia H, Gao Y, Shi W, Bai H. Double vitrification-warming cycles, coupled with blastocyst biopsy, impair live birth but do not affect neonatal outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14355.

  30. Drakopoulos P, Garcia-Velasco J, Bosch E, Blockeel C, de Vos M, Santos-Ribeiro S, et al. ICSI does not offer any benefit over conventional IVF across different ovarian response categories in non-male factor infertility: a European multicenter analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:2067–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Supramaniam PR, Granne I, Ohuma EO, Lim LN, McVeigh E, Venkatakrishnan R, et al. ICSI does not improve reproductive outcomes in autologous ovarian response cycles with non-male factor subfertility. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:583–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu L, Wang H, Li Z, Niu J, Tang R. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in vitro fertilization in couples with nonsevere male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:792–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dang VQ, Vuong LN, Luu TM, Pham TD, Ho TM, Ha AN, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation in couples with infertility in whom the male partner has normal total sperm count and motility: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397:1554–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors expressed gratitude to all participants involved in this study.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2700604), General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (82171648), and Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (81901556, 82101752).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Qian Zhang and Wenhao Yu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China

    Qian Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenxi Jin, Tianxiang Ni, Tingting Zhou, Qing Zhao, Weilin Wang & Junhao Yan

  2. Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China

    Qian Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenxi Jin, Tianxiang Ni, Tingting Zhou, Qing Zhao, Weilin Wang & Junhao Yan

  3. Shandong Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China

    Qian Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenxi Jin, Tianxiang Ni, Tingting Zhou, Qing Zhao, Weilin Wang & Junhao Yan

  4. Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Reproductive Health, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China

    Qian Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenxi Jin, Tianxiang Ni, Tingting Zhou, Qing Zhao, Weilin Wang & Junhao Yan

  5. Shandong Technology Innovation Center for Reproductive Health, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China

    Qian Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenxi Jin, Tianxiang Ni, Tingting Zhou, Qing Zhao, Weilin Wang & Junhao Yan

  6. National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China

    Qian Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenxi Jin, Tianxiang Ni, Tingting Zhou, Qing Zhao, Weilin Wang & Junhao Yan

  7. Linyi People’s Hospital, Linyi, 276000, Shandong, China

    Yunjia Li

Authors
  1. Qian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenhao Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chenxi Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tianxiang Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tingting Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qing Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Weilin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yunjia Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Junhao Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junhao Yan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Center for Reproductive Medicine, Shandong University. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

All authors read and gave their consent for publication.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 22 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Q., Yu, W., Jin, C. et al. Impact of Multiple Vitrification-Warming Procedures and Insemination Methods on Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes in Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy. Reprod. Sci. 30, 2302–2312 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01177-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01177-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation