Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semi-automated versus manual embryo vitrification: inter-operator variability, time-saving, and clinical outcomes

  • Technical Innovations
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Does semi-automated vitrification have lower inter-operator variability and better clinical outcomes than manual vitrification?

Methods

Retrospective analyses of 282 patients whose embryos had been cryopreserved, manually with Irvine®-CBS® (MV) or semi-automatically vitrified with the GAVI® method (AV) (from November 2017 to September 2020). Both techniques were performed during the same period by 5 operators. Inter-operator variability was statistically analyzed between operators who performed the vitrification and those who performed the warming process to compare the intact survival rate (% embryos with 100% intact blastomeres) and the positive survival rate (at least 50% intact blastomeres). Additionally, the complete vitrification time was assessed for the 2 techniques according to the number of vitrified embryos.

Results

Manual vitrification involved warming 338 embryos in 266 cycles for 181 couples compared to 212 embryos in 162 AV cycles for 101 patients. The positive survival rate was higher (p < 0.05) after MV (96%; 323/338) than after AV (90%; 191/212). The intact survival rate (86 vs 84%) and the clinical pregnancy rate (27 vs 22%) were not significantly different between MV and AV. Regarding the inter-operator variability, no significant difference in positive and intact survival rate was evident between the 5 technicians, neither by vitrification nor by warming steps with MV and AV. Concerning time-saving, the MV technique proved to be quicker than AV (minus 11 ± 9 min).

Conclusions

Manual vitrification exhibited favorable total survival rates and was more time efficient, while both MV and AV cooling and warming treatments showed little operator variability.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Liebermann J, Dietl J, Vanderzwalmen P, Tucker MJ. Recent developments in human oocyte, embryo and blastocyst vitrification: where are we now? Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(6):623–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62084-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(2):139–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmw038.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mourad S, Brown J, Farquhar C. Interventions for the prevention of OHSS in ART cycles: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:CD012103. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012103.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. De Vos M, Smitz J, Woodruff TK. Fertility preservation in women with cancer. Lancet. 2014;384(9950):1302–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60834-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dessolle L, Biau DJ, de Larouziere V, Ravel C, Antoine JM, Darai E, et al. Learning curve of vitrification assessed by cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3):943–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vajta G, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. Open versus closed systems for vitrification of human oocytes and embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(4):325–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.12.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jin B, Mazur P. High survival of mouse oocytes/embryos after vitrification without permeating cryoprotectants followed by ultra-rapid warming with an IR laser pulse. Sci Rep. 2015;5:9271. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09271.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schiewe M. Quality control factors influencing the successful and reliable implementation of oocyte and embryo vitrification. Cryopreservation in Eukaryotes. 2016;181–98. https://doi.org/10.5772/65332.

  9. Tannus S, Dahan MH, Tan J, Tan SL. Issues related to human oocyte vitrification: a consideration of the facts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(7):1157–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1184-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gatimel N, Ladj M, Teston C, Lesourd F, Fajau C, Cohade C, et al. How many embryos should be transferred? A validated score to predict ongoing implantation rate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;212:30–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.03.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eshre Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(5):494–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alpha Scientists In Reproductive Medicine. The Alpha consensus meeting on cryopreservation key performance indicators and benchmarks: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(2):146–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and Eshre Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der037.

  14. Roy TK, Brandi S, Tappe NM, Bradley CK, Vom E, Henderson C, et al. Embryo vitrification using a novel semi-automated closed system yields in vitro outcomes equivalent to the manual Cryotop method. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(11):2431–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kovacic B, Plas C, Woodward BJ, Verheyen G, Prados FJ, Hreinsson J, et al. The educational and professional status of clinical embryology and clinical embryologists in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(8):1755–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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(1):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2009.04.012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Durban M, Garcia D, Obradors A, Vernaeve V, Vassena R. Are we ready to inject? Individualized LC-CUSUM training in ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(8):1009–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0686-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Debrock S, Peeraer K, Fernandez Gallardo E, 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(8):1820–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev134.

  19. Yu L, Jia C, Lan Y, Song R, Zhou L, Li Y, et al. Analysis of embryo intactness and developmental potential following slow freezing and vitrification. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2017;63(5):285–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19396368.2017.1362060.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-11-29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schiewe MC, Zozula S, Anderson RE, Fahy GM. Validation of microSecure vitrification (muS-VTF) for the effective cryopreservation of human embryos and oocytes. Cryobiology. 2015;71(2):264–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.07.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rall WF. Factors affecting the survival of mouse embryos cryopreserved by vitrification. Cryobiology. 1987;24(5):387–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-2240(87)90042-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mazur P, Seki S. Survival of mouse oocytes after being cooled in a vitrification solution to -196 degrees C at 95 degrees to 70,000 degrees C/min and warmed at 610 degrees to 118,000 degrees C/min: A new paradigm for cryopreservation by vitrification. Cryobiology. 2011;62(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2010.10.159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miwa A, Noguchi Y, Hosoya K, Mori Y, Sato T, Kasahara Y, et al. Equivalent clinical outcome after vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer using semi-automated embryo vitrification system compared with manual vitrification method. Reprod Med Biol. 2020;19(2):164–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Dal Canto M, Moutier C, Brambillasca F, Guglielmo MC, Bartolacci A, Fadini R, et al. The first report of pregnancies following blastocyst automated vitrification in Europe. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(7):537–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No specific funding was sought for the study. The University Hospital supported the authors throughout the study period and manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Paule de Viguier Hospital, Toulouse University Hospital, 330 Avenue de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France

    Nicolas Gatimel, Jessika Moreau, Célia Bettiol, Jean Parinaud & Roger D. Léandri

  2. DEFE (Développement Embryonnaire, Fertilité Et Environnement), UMR1203 INSERM – Université de Montpellier - Université Toulouse III, Toulouse Teaching Hospital Group, 330 avenue de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France

    Nicolas Gatimel

  3. TOXALIM, EXPER Group, Toulouse National Vetenary School, 23, chemin des Capelles, 31076, Toulouse Cedex 3, France

    Jessika Moreau, Jean Parinaud & Roger D. Léandri

Authors
  1. Nicolas Gatimel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessika Moreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Célia Bettiol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean Parinaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roger D. Léandri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Gatimel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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 17 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gatimel, N., Moreau, J., Bettiol, C. et al. Semi-automated versus manual embryo vitrification: inter-operator variability, time-saving, and clinical outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 3213–3222 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02346-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02346-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation