Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of cell loss after warming of human vitrified day 3 embryos on obstetric outcome in single frozen embryo transfers

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

Abstract

Purpose

Does cell loss (CL) after vitrification and warming (V/W) of day 3 embryos have an impact on live birth rate (LBR) and neonatal outcomes?

Method

This retrospective analysis includes cleavage stage day 3 embryos vitrified/warmed between 2011 and 2018. Only single vitrified/warmed embryo transfers were included. Pre-implantation genetic screening, oocyte donation, and age banking were excluded from the analysis. The sample was divided into two groups: group A (intact embryo after warming) and group B (≤ 50% blastomere loss after warming).

Results

On the total embryos (n = 2327), 1953 were fully intact (83.9%, group A) and 374 presented cell damage (16.1%, group B). In group B, 62% (232/374) of the embryos had lost only one cell. Age at cryopreservation, cause of infertility, insemination procedure, and semen origin were comparable between the two groups. The positive hCG rate (30% and 24.3%, respectively, for intact vs CL group, p = 0.028) and LBR (13.7% and 9.4%, respectively, for intact vs CL group, p = 0.023) per warming cycle were significantly higher for intact embryos. However, LBR per positive hCG was equivalent between intact and damaged embryos (45.6% vs 38.5%, respectively, p = 0.2). Newborn measurements (length, weight, and head circumference at birth) were comparable between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression showed that the presence of CL is not predictive for LB when adjusting for patients’ age.

Conclusions

LBR is significantly higher after transfer of an intact embryo compared to an embryo with CL after warming; however, neonatal outcomes are comparable between the two groups.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2020 Dec 14];90(1):186–93. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17980870/

  2. Belva F, Henriet S, Van Den Abbeel E, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Der Elst J, et al. Neonatal outcome of 937 children born after transfer of cryopreserved embryos obtained by ICSI and IVF and comparison with outcome data of fresh ICSI and IVF cycles. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2020 Dec 14];23(10):2227–38. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18628260/

  3. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Vol. 102, Fertility and Sterility. Elsevier Inc.; 2014. p. 3–9.

  4. Edgar DH, Bourne H, Speirs AL, McBain JC. A quantitative analysis of the impact of cryopreservation on the implantation potential of human early cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2020 Dec 14];15(1):175–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10611209/

  5. Archer J, Gook DA, Edgar DH. Blastocyst formation and cell numbers in human frozen-thawed embryos following extended culture. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2020 Dec 14];18(8):1669–73. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12871880/

  6. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, Minasi MG, Romano S, Ferrero S, et al. Developmental potential of fully intact and partially damaged cryopreserved embryos after laser-assisted removal of necrotic blastomeres and post-thaw culture selection. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2020 Dec 14];84(4):888–94. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16213840/

  7. Van Landuyt L, Van De Velde H, De Vos A, Haentjens P, Blockeel C, Tournaye H, et al. Influence of cell loss after vitrification or slow-freezing on further in vitro development and implantation of human day 3 embryos. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2020 Dec 14];28(11):2943–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24014599/

  8. Van der Elst J, Van den Abbeel E, Vitrier S, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Selective transfer of cryopreserved human embryos with further cleavage after thawing increases delivery and implantation rates. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 1997 [cited 2020 Dec 14];12(7):1513–21. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9262288/

  9. Burns WN, Gaudet TW, Martin MB, Leal YR, Schoen H, Eddy CA, et al. Survival of cryopreservation and thawing with all blastomeres intact identifies multicell embryos with superior frozen embryo transfer outcome. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 1999 [cited 2021 Feb 14];72(3):527–32. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10519629/

  10. El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Al-Darazi K, Andritsos V, Taylor A, Braude P. Effect of blastomere loss on the outcome of frozen embryo replacement cycles. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2021 Feb 14];79(5):1106–11. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12738503/

  11. Zheng X, Liu P, Chen G, Qiao J, Wu Y, Fan M. Viability of frozen-thawed human embryos with one-two blastomeres lysis. J Assist Reprod Genet [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2021 Feb 14];25(7):281–5. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18607715/

  12. Capodanno F, De Feo G, Gizzo S, Nicoli A, Palomba S, La Sala GB. Embryo quality before and after slow freezing: viability, implantation and pregnancy rates in 627 single frozen-thawed embryo replacement cycles following failure of fresh transfer. Reprod Biol [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Dec 14];16(2):113–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27288335/

  13. O’Shea LC, Hughes C, Kirkham C, Mocanu E V. The impact of blastomere survival rates on developmental competence of cryo-thawed day 2 embryos. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Dec 14];197:98–102. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26722995/

  14. Wu YT, Li C, Zhu YM, Zou SH, Wu QF, Wang LP, et al. Outcomes of neonates born following transfers of frozen-thawed cleavage-stage embryos with blastomere loss: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. BMC Med. 2018; 16(1).

  15. Jiang S, Jin W, Zhao X, et al. The impact of blastomere loss on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of vitrified-warmed day3 embryos in single embryo transfer cycles. J Ovarian Res. 2022;15:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-022-00997-z

  16. Popovic-Todorovic B, Racca A, Blockeel C. Added value today of hormonal measurements in ovarian stimulation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment cycle [Internet]. Vol. 30, Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2018 [cited 2021 Feb 14]. p. 145–50. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29664792/

  17. Humaidan P, Polyzos NP, Alsbjerg B, Erb K, Mikkelsen AL, Elbaek HO, et al. GnRHa trigger and individualized luteal phase hCG support according to ovarian response to stimulation: two prospective randomized controlled multi-centre studies in IVF patients. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2021 Feb 14];28(9):2511–21. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23753114/

  18. Mackens S, Santos-Ribeiro S, van de Vijver A, Racca A, Van Landuyt L, Tournaye H, et al. Frozen embryo transfer: a review on the optimal endometrial preparation and timing. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 14];32(11):2234–42. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29025055/

  19. Guerif F, Bidault R, Cadoret V, Couet ML, Lansac J, Royere D. Parameters guiding selection of best embryos for transfer after cryopreservation: a reappraisal. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2020 Dec 14];17(5):1321–6. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11980759/

  20. Zhang S, Lu C, Lin G, Gong F, Lu G. The number of blastomeres in post-thawing embryos affects the rates of pregnancy and delivery in freeze-embryo-transfer cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 Feb 14];26(11–12):569–73. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19898930/

  21. 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 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 14];63(5):285–93. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28795845/

  22. Van Den Abbeel E, Van Steirteghem A. Zona pellucida damage to human embryos after cryopreservation and the consequences for their blastomere survival and in-vitro viability. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2020 Dec 14];15(2):373–8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10655309/

  23. Elliott TA, Colturato LFA, Taylor TH, Wright G, Kort HI, Nagy ZP. Lysed cell removal promotes frozen-thawed embryo development. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2020 Dec 14];87(6):1444–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17296186/

  24. Von Versen-Hoÿnck F, Schaub AM, Chi YY, Chiu KH, Liu J, Lingis M, et al. Increased preeclampsia risk and reduced aortic compliance with in vitro fertilization cycles in the absence of a corpus luteum. Hypertension [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Sep 11];73(3):640–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30636552/

  25. Zaat TR, Brink AJ, de Bruin JP, Goddijn M, Broekmans FJM, Cohlen BJ, et al. Increased obstetric and neonatal risks in artificial cycles for frozen embryo transfers? Reprod Biomed Online [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 11];42(5):919–29. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33736993/

  26. Zong L, Liu P, Zhou L, Wei D, Ding L, Qin Y. Increased risk of maternal and neonatal complications in hormone replacement therapy cycles in frozen embryo transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 11];18(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32366332/

  27. Bradburn MJ, Lee EC, White DA, Hind D, Waugh NR, Cooke DD, et al. Treatment effects may remain the same even when trial participants differed from the target population. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Nov 6];124:126–38. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32438024/

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Walter Meul for the contribution to the data management of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 78, 95125, Catania, Italy

    Federica Di Guardo

  2. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101-1090, Brussels, Belgium

    Federica Di Guardo, P. Drakopoulos, S. Mackens, H. Tournaye, G. Verheyen, C. Blockeel & L. Van Landuyt

  3. Department of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Dexeus University Hospital, Gran Via de Carles III, 71, 08028, Barcelona, Spain

    A. Racca

  4. 9.Baby Family and Fertility Center, Via Dante 15, 40125, Bologna, Italy

    G. Coticchio & A. Borini

  5. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatology and Reproduction, Institute of Professional Education, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Trubetskaya str., 8, b. 2, 119992, Moscow, Russia

    H. Tournaye

Authors
  1. Federica Di Guardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Racca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Coticchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Borini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Drakopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Mackens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. Tournaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G. Verheyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C. Blockeel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. L. Van Landuyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.D.G. was responsible for the concept and the initial draft of the article. A.R. was responsible for the concept and conducted the statistical analysis. G.C., A.B., P.D., S.M., H.T., G.V., and C.B. contributed to the interpretation and editing of the article. L.V.L. contributed to the conception and draft of the article. All of the authors critically reviewed the content and approved the final version of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federica Di Guardo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Di Guardo, F., Racca, A., Coticchio, G. et al. Impact of cell loss after warming of human vitrified day 3 embryos on obstetric outcome in single frozen embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 2069–2075 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02572-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02572-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation