Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 521–526 | Cite as

Neonatal outcomes after the implantation of human embryos vitrified using a closed-system device

  • Hideyuki Iwahata
  • Shu Hashimoto
  • Masayasu Inoue
  • Tomoko Inoue
  • Keijiro Ito
  • Yoshiharu Nakaoka
  • Nao Suzuki
  • Yoshiharu Morimoto
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



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.


Closed 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.


  1. 1.
    Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305:707–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rall W, Fahy G. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at −196 °C by vitrification. Nature. 1985;313:573–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liebermann J, Tucker MJ. Effect of carrier system on the yield of human oocytes and embryos as assessed by survival and developmental potential after vitrification. Reproduction. 2002;124:483–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mazur P, Seki S, Pinn IL, Kleinhans FW, Edashige K. Extra- and intracellular ice formation in mouse oocytes. Cryobiology. 2005;51:29–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vajta G, Nagy ZP. Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:779–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mazur P, Cole KW, Hall WH, Schreuders PD, Mahowald AP. Cryobiological preservation of Drosophila embryos. Science. 1992;258:1932–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang JY, Chen HY, Tan SL, Chian RC. Effect of choline-supplemented sodium-depleted slow freezing versus vitrification on mouse oocyte meiotic spindles and chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1093–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lane M, Gardner DK. Vitrification of mouse oocytes using a nylon loop. Mol Reprod Dev. 2001;58:342–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nedambale TL, Dinnyes A, Groen W, Dobrinsky JR, Tian XC, Yang X. Comparison on in vitro fertilized bovine embryos cultured in KSOM or SOF and cryopreserved by slow freezing or vitrification. Theriogenology. 2004;62:437–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valojerdi MR, Salehnia M. Developmental potential and ultrastructural injuries of metaphase II (MII) mouse oocytes after slow freezing or vitrification. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22:119–27.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:186–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martinez-Burgos M, Herrero L, Megias D, Salvanes R, Montoya MC, Cobo AC, et al. Vitrification versus slow freezing of oocytes: effects on morphologic appearance, meiotic spindle configuration, and DNA damage. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:374–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bielanski A. The potential for animal and human germplasm contamination through assisted reproductive technologies. Trends Reprod Biol. 2006;2:13–36.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bielanski A, Vajta G. Risk of contamination of germplasm during cryopreservation and cryobanking in IVF units. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2457–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Leda S, Kato O. Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:608–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Isachenko V, Montag M, Isachenko E, Zaeva V, Krivokharchenko I, Shafei R, et al. Aseptic technology of vitrification of human pronuclear oocytes using open-pulled straws. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:492–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Isachenko V, Katkov II, Yakovenko S, Lulat AG, Ulug M, Arvas A, et al. Vitrification of human laser treated blastocysts within cut standard straws (CSS): novel aseptic packaging and reduced concentrations of cryoprotectants. Cryobiology. 2007;54:305–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanderzwalmen P, Ectors F, Grobet L, Prapas Y, Panagiotidis Y, Vanderzwalmen S, et al. Aseptic vitrification of blastocysts from infertile patients, egg donors and after IVM. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:700–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larman MG, Gardner DK. Vitrification of mouse embryos with super-cooled air. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1462–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    AbdelHafez F, Xu J, Goldberg J, Desai N. Vitrification in open and closed carriers at different cell stages: assessment of embryo survival, development. DNA integrity and stability during vapor phase storage for transport. BMC Biotechnol. 2011;11:29.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Panagiotidis Y, Kasapi E, Goudakou M, Papatheodorou A, Pasadaki T, Petousis S, et al. Open vs. closed vitrification system for the cryopreservation of human blastocysts: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:i59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papatheodourou A, Vanderzwalmen P, Panagiotidis Y, Kasapi L, Goudakou M, Pasadaki T, et al. Open versus closed oocyte vitrification system: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:i72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Munck N, Verheyen G, Stoop D, Van Landuyt L, Van de Velde H. Survival and post-warming in vitro competence of human oocytes after high-security closed system vitrification. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:i72–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hashimoto S, Amo A, Hama S, Ohsumi K, Nakaoka Y, Morimoto Y. A closed system supports the developmental competence of human embryos after vitrification. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:371–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Desai NN, Goldberg JM, Austin C, Falcone T. The new Rapid-i carrier is an effective system for human embryo vitrification at both the blastocyst and cleavage stage. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11:41.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen Y, Zheng X, Yan J, Qiao J, Liu P. Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11:107.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable human blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 1997;3:367–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Hashimoto S, Amo A, Hama S, Ito K, Nakaoka Y, Morimoto Y. Growth retardation in human blastocysts increases the incidence of abnormal spindles and decreases implantation potential after vitrification. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1528–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hashimoto S, Nishihara T, Murata Y, Oku H, Nakaoka Y, Fukuda A, et al. Medium without ammonium accumulation supports the developmental competence of human embryos. J Reprod Dev. 2008;54:370–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rooney DE, Czepulkowski BH. Human cytogenetics. A practical approach. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:536–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yokota Y, Sato S, Yokota M, Ishikawa Y, Makita M, Asada T, et al. Successful pregnancy following blastocyst vitrification: case report. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1802–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    CryoBio: pre-market notification K092398 HSV straw. 2010.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seki S, Mazur P. The dominance of warming rate over cooling rate in the survival of mouse oocytes subjected to a vitrification procedure. Cryobiology. 2009;59:75–82.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, Deketelaere V, Derde MP, Camus M, Devroey P, et al. Neonatal data on a cohort of 2889 infants born after ICSI (1991–1999) and of 2995 infants born after IVF (1983–1999). Hum Reprod. 2002;19:671–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Budinetz TH, Mann JS, Griffin DW, Benadiva CA, Nulsen JC, Engmann LC. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger for final oocyte maturation in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:753–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hideyuki Iwahata
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shu Hashimoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Masayasu Inoue
    • 1
  • Tomoko Inoue
    • 1
  • Keijiro Ito
    • 1
  • Yoshiharu Nakaoka
    • 1
  • Nao Suzuki
    • 2
  • Yoshiharu Morimoto
    • 1
  1. 1.IVF Namba ClinicNishi-kuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySt. Marianna University School of MedicineKanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations