Neonatal outcomes after the implantation of human embryos vitrified using a closed-system device
- 220 Downloads
Closed vitrification poses a risk of adversely affecting embryo development, while it may minimize the risk of contamination. We assessed the effects of closed-system human embryo vitrification on fetal development after implantation, neonatal outcome, and clinical safety.
This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a private fertility clinic. A total of 875 vitrified-warmed blastocysts that were single-transferred under hormone-replacement cycles between November 2011 and December 2013 were randomly divided into two groups (closed vitrification, n 313; open vitrification, n 562) after receiving the patients’ consent forms. Developmental competence after implantation, including gestational age, birth weight, sex, Apgar score, and anomalies of newborns, after the transfer of blastocysts vitrified by closing vitrification was compared with that obtained in the case of open vitrification.
There were no significant differences between the use of closed and open vitrification systems in embryo development after implantation, gestational age, birth weight, sex ratio, Apgar score, and congenital anomalies of newborns.
Human embryos can be vitrified using a closed vitrification system without impairment of neonatal development.
KeywordsClosed vitrification system Human blastocyst Neonatal outcome
This work was supported in part by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JPS-RFTF 23580397 to S.H.).
Conflicts of interest
None of the authors has a conflict of interest to disclose. Some of these data were presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, October 12–17, 2013 in Boston, and a part of the data of viability after vitrification was reported in J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30:371–376.
- 13.Bielanski A. The potential for animal and human germplasm contamination through assisted reproductive technologies. Trends Reprod Biol. 2006;2:13–36.Google Scholar
- 27.Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, D’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. The European IVF-monitoring (EIM) and consortium, for the European society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2099–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Rehman KS, Bukulmez O, Langley M, Carr BR, Nackley AC, Doody KM, et al. Late stages of embryo progression are a much better predictor of clinical pregnancy than early cleavage in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cycles with blastocyst-stage transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:1041–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Rooney DE, Czepulkowski BH. Human cytogenetics. A practical approach. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
- 35.CryoBio: pre-market notification K092398 HSV straw. 2010.Google Scholar
- 39.Koike A, Nakaoka Y, Tarui S, Ohgaki A, Sugihara K, Nagata F, et al. Analysis of clinical outcomes from pregnancies achieved by frozen-thawed embryo transfer. J Fertil Implant. 2008;25:219–22.Google Scholar