scholarly journals Eight years' experience in autologous oocytes vitrification for male factors: efforts to find relevant clinical predictors of oocytes survivability

Author(s):  
Xiao Fu ◽  
Xiaojie Liu ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
Meng Zhang ◽  
Jingjing Jiang ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to provides a descriptive analysis of the clinical outcomes achieved in oocyte vitrification in cases of unavailable sperm on oocyte retrieval day, and to find predictors of oocyte survival. Methods This retrospective cohort study used data from a university-affiliated reproductive medicine center. There were 321 cycles carried part or all oocytes vitrification due to unavailability of sperm from March 2009 to October 2017. A descriptive analysis of the clinical outcomes including both fresh embryo transfers and cryopreserved embryos transfers was provided. The ability of an individual parameter to forecast oocyte survival per thawing cycle was assessed by a binary logistic regression analysis. The cumulative probability of live birth (CPLB) was estimated by using the K-M method according to the total number of oocytes consumed in consecutive procedures. Results The average survival rate was 83.13% (95% CI 81.81–86.35%). High-quality embryo rate decreased significantly (33.33% vs. 53.75%, P < 0.0001) comparing to fresh control oocytes. The live birth rate per warmed-oocyte was 4.3%. Reasons for lack of sperm availability on oocyte retrieval day and serum cholesterol level were found to be associated with oocytes survival rate in present study. The Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significantly different CPLB between patients ≤ 35 versus > 35 years. Conclusions Oocyte vitrification is proved to be an indispensable and effective alternative when lack of available sperm on oocyte retrieval day. Present study provided evidences that the oocytes from infertile population were more likely suffer to vitrification injury. Clinicians need to take this into account when giving suggestions to patients for similar situations. Further studies will be necessary to clarify the correlation between serum sterol lipids levels and human oocyte survivability after vitrification.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Fu ◽  
Xiaojie Liu ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
Meng Zhang ◽  
Jingjing Jiang ◽  
...  

Objective: The objective of this study was to provide a descriptive analysis of the clinical outcomes achieved in oocyte vitrification in cases where sperm was unavailable on oocyte retrieval day, and to identify predictors of oocyte survival.Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from a university-affiliated reproductive medical center. There were 321 cycles in which some of, or all oocytes were vitrified owing to the unavailability of sperm between March 2009 and October 2017. A descriptive analysis of the clinical outcomes including both fresh embryo transfers and cryopreserved embryo transfers was provided. The ability of an individual parameter to forecast oocyte survival per thawing cycle was assessed by binary logistic regression analysis. The cumulative probability of live birth (CPLB) was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method according to the total number of oocytes thawed in consecutive procedures.Results: The average survival rate was 83.13%. High-quality embryo rate and blastocyst rate decreased significantly decreased significantly in vitrification oocyte group compared to fresh control oocytes. The comparison of sibling oocytes in part-oocyte-vitrified cycles shows fewer high-quality embryos developed in the vitrified group. The live birth rate per warmed-oocyte was 4.3%. Reasons for lack of sperm availability on oocyte retrieval day and serum cholesterol levels were found to be associated with oocyte survival rate in the present study. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in CPLB between patients ≤35 vs. &gt;35 years.Conclusions: Oocyte vitrification is an indispensable and effective alternative when sperm are not available on oocyte retrieval day. The present study provided evidence that oocytes from infertile couples were more likely to suffer oocyte/embryo vitrification injury. Clinicians need to take this into account when advising patients in similar situations. Further studies will be necessary to clarify the correlation between serum metabolism parameters and human oocyte survival after vitrification.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danilo Cimadomo ◽  
Antonio Capalbo ◽  
Lisa Dovere ◽  
Luisa Tacconi ◽  
Daria Soscia ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Is there an association between patients’ reproductive history and the mean euploidy rates per biopsied blastocysts (m-ER) or the live birth rates (LBRs) per first single vitrified-warmed euploid blastocyst transfers? SUMMARY ANSWER Patients’ reproductive history (as annotated during counselling) showed no association with the m-ER, but a lower LBR was reported after euploid blastocyst transfer in women with a history of repeated implantation failure (RIF). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Several studies have investigated the association between the m-ER and (i) patients’ basal characteristics, (ii) ovarian stimulation strategy and dosage, (iii) culture media and conditions, and (iv) embryo morphology and day of full blastocyst development. Conversely, the expected m-ER due to women’s reproductive history (previous live births (LBs), miscarriages, failed IVF cycles and transfers, and lack of euploid blastocysts among prior cohorts of biopsied embryos) still needs investigations. Yet, this information is critical to counsel new patients about a first cycle with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), but even more so after former adverse outcomes to prevent treatment drop-out. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This observational study included all patients undergoing a comprehensive chromosome testing (CCT)-based PGT-A cycle with at least one biopsied blastocyst in the period April 2013-December 2019 at a private IVF clinic (n = 2676 patients undergoing 2676 treatments and producing and 8151 blastocysts). m-ER were investigated according to women’s reproductive history of LBs: no/≥1, miscarriages: no/1/&gt;1; failed IVF cycles: no/1/2/&gt;2, and implantation failures after previous transfers: no/1/2/&gt;2. Among the 2676 patients included in this study, 440 (16%) had already undergone PGT-A before the study period; the data from these patients were further clustered according to the presence or absence of euploid embryo(s) in their previous cohort of biopsied blastocysts. The clinical outcomes per first single vitrified-warmed euploid blastocyst transfers (n =1580) were investigated according to the number of patients’ previous miscarriages and implantation failures. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The procedures involved in this study included ICSI, blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy without hatching in Day 3, CCT-based PGT-A without reporting segmental and/or putative mitotic (or mosaic) aneuploidies and single vitrified-warmed euploid blastocyst transfer. For statistical analysis, Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis tests, as well as linear regressions and generalised linear models among ranges of maternal age at oocyte retrieval were performed to identify significant differences for continuous variables. Fisher’s exact tests and multivariate logistic regression analyses were instead used for categorical variables. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Maternal age at oocyte retrieval was the only variable significantly associated with the m-ER. We defined five clusters (&lt;35 years: 66 ± 31%; 35–37 years: 58 ± 33%; 38–40 years: 43 ± 35%; 40–42 years: 28 ± 34%; and &gt;42 years: 17 ± 31%) and all analyses were conducted among them. The m-ER did not show any association with the number of previous LBs, miscarriages, failed IVF cycles or implantation failures. Among patients who had already undergone PGT-A before the study period, the m-ER did not associate with the absence (or presence) of euploid blastocysts in their former cohort of biopsied embryos. Regarding clinical outcomes of the first single vitrified-warmed euploid blastocyst transfer, the implantation rate was 51%, the miscarriage rate was 14% and the LBR was 44%. This LBR was independent of the number of previous miscarriages, but showed a decreasing trend depending on the number of previous implantation failures, reaching statistical significance when comparing patients with &gt;2 failures and patients with no prior failure (36% versus 47%, P &lt; 0.01; multivariate-OR adjusted for embryo quality and day of full blastocyst development: 0.64, 95% CI 0.48–0.86, P &lt; 0.01). No such differences were shown for previous miscarriage rates. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The sample size for treatments following a former completed PGT-A cycle should be larger in future studies. The data should be confirmed from a multicentre perspective. The analysis should be performed also in non-PGT cycles and/or including patients who did not produce blastocysts, in order to investigate a putative association between women’s reproductive history with outcomes other than euploidy and LBRs. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These data are critical to counsel infertile couples before, during and after a PGT-A cycle, especially to prevent treatment discontinuation due to previous adverse reproductive events. Beyond the ‘maternal age effect’, the causes of idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and RIF are likely to be endometrial receptivity and selectivity issues; transferring euploid blastocysts might reduce the risk of a further miscarriage, but more information beyond euploidy are required to improve the prognosis in case of RIF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No funding was received and there are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Cobo

Abstract text The challenge of cryopreserve, store for prolonged period, and successfully implant the female gamete is nowadays feasible thanks to vitrification. The technology that was initially validated in oocyte recipients is currently applied to a vast population, including women at risk of losing their ovarian function due either to iatrogenic causes as occurs in cancer patients, or due to the natural depletion of the ovarian reserve as a result of age related fertility decline. That is the case of a growing population of women who wish to postpone childbearing and decide on oocyte vitrification as a means of fertility preservation (FP). At present, there is a growing body of evidence regarding the use of vitrified oocytes by many women under different indications, which makes it possible to evaluate the approach from different scenarios. So that vitrification can be evaluated in terms on survival rates, embryo development and the rate at which vitrified oocytes develop into live-born children in IVF cycles using vitrified oocytes which were initially stored due to different reasons. The effects of vitrification at the subcellular level and its impact on oocyte competence is of interest in the evaluation of the efficacy of the technology. Some studies have indicated that vitrification may affect ultrastructure, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, gene expression, and epigenetic status. However, it is still controversial whether oocyte vitrification could induce DNA damage in the oocytes and the resulting early embryos. Recent studies show that oocytes survival and clinical outcome after vitrification can be impaired by patients’ age and the clinical indication or the reason for vitrification. These studies show that age at oocyte retrieval strongly affects the survival and reproductive prognosis. In our experience, oocyte survival, pregnancy and cumulative live birth rates are significantly higher when patients are aged 35 years or younger versus patients older than 35 years at oocyte retrieval. Therefore, elective-FP patients should be encouraged to decide at young ages to significantly increase their chances of success. There is also evidence that the reason for vitrification is associated to the success rates. Poorer reproductive outcome was reported in cancer patients, low responders and endometriosis patients when compared to healthy women in age matching groups. Moreover, there are certain individualities linked to specific populations, as occurs when endometriosis patients had cystectomy earlier than the oocyte retrieval for FP. These women achieved lower success rates as compared to non-operated age matching counterparts. In this case, the lower cumulative live birth rates observed in operated women are, most probably, due to the smaller number of oocytes available, as a consequence of the detrimental effect of the surgery on the ovarian reserve. In this regard, several reports show that the number of oocytes available per patient is another variable closely related to the outcome in all populations using vitrified oocytes after FP. Thus, a significant improvement in the cumulative live birth rates can be achieved by adding a few oocytes, especially in healthy young patients. Different populations using vitrified oocytes under several indications achieve differential results in terms of pregnancy rates, when calculated in overall. Nonetheless, when the calculations for the cumulative probability of achieving a baby are made according the number of oocytes used per patient belonging to the same group of age, the results become comparable between different populations, as shown by the comparison between elective freezers versus endometriosis patients. Undoubtedly, vitrification can be recognized as one of the latest brakethrough in the ART field, but certainly the next step forward would be the successfull automatization of the vitrification and warming processes to achieve fully consistency among different laboratories.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 2262-2271
Author(s):  
D Cornet-Bartolomé ◽  
A Rodriguez ◽  
D García ◽  
M Barragán ◽  
R Vassena

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Is oocyte vitrification/warming as efficient and effective as using fresh oocytes in donation cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER IVF with vitrified donor oocytes is less efficient than using fresh oocytes, but its efficacy remains comparable to that of fresh cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Oocyte vitrification is used to preserve the reproductive potential of oocytes. A small number of randomized controlled trials carried out by experienced groups have shown that this technique provides fertilization, pregnancy, implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates comparable to those of fresh oocytes. However, large registry-based analyses have consistently reported lower live birth rates (LBRs) in cycles using vitrified oocytes. It is not clear whether this decrease may be due to the effect of vitrification per se on the oocytes or to the lower efficiency of the technique, as some of the oocytes do not survive after warming. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Retrospective cohort analysis of 1844 cycles of oocyte donation (37 520 oocytes), each donor in the study provided enough oocytes for at least one reception cycle with fresh oocytes (2561 cycles) and one reception cycle with vitrified oocytes (2471 cycles) from the same ovarian stimulation (sibling oocytes). Overall, 35 654 oocytes were considered in the analysis. All embryo transfers (n = 5032) were carried out between 2011 and 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Differences in reproductive outcomes after the first embryo transfer were evaluated using Pearson’s Chi-squared test and regression analysis adjusted for recipient’s age, BMI, sperm origin and state, day of embryo transfer, morphological score and number of transferred embryos. We performed two additional sub-analyses, to test whether the efficiency and/or effectiveness of vitrification/warming impacts reproductive results. One analysis included paired cycles where the same number of fresh and vitrified oocytes were available for ICSI (SAME sub-analysis), while the second analysis included those cycles with a 100% survival rate post-warming (SAME100 sub-analysis). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Baseline and cycle characteristics of participants were comparable between groups. Overall, fertilization rates and embryo morphological scores were significantly lower (P &lt; 0.001) when using vitrified oocytes; moreover, vitrified oocytes also resulted in lower reproductive outcomes than sibling fresh oocytes using both unadjusted and adjusted analyses: ongoing pregnancy (32.1% versus 37.5%; P &lt; 0.001; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77, 1.00) and live birth (32.1% versus 31.9%; P = 0.92; OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90, 1.49). However, when the efficiency of warming was taken into account, reproductive outcomes in recipients became comparable: ongoing pregnancy (33.5% versus 34.1%; P = 0.82; OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.87, 1.43) and LBR (32.1% versus 32%; P = 0.97; OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89, 1.48). Moreover, after selecting only cycles that, in addition to having the same number of oocytes available for ICSI, also had 100% post-warming survival rate in the vitrified group, reproductive outcomes were also comparable between fresh and vitrified oocytes: ongoing pregnancy (34.8% versus 32.4%; P = 0.42; OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98, 1.77) and live birth (32.9% versus 31.0%; P = 0.52; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.95, 1.71), indicating that reproductive outcomes of these cycles are affected by the efficiency of the vitrification/warming technique performed rather than the oocyte damage due to the fast cooling process to which oocytes are subjected. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION An open vitrification system was used for all cases, and oocyte vitrification/warming was performed by experienced embryologists with consistently high survival rates; caution must be exerted when extrapolating our results to data obtained using other open vitrification systems, closed vitrification systems or to IVF units with survival rates &lt;90%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the largest cohort study comparing reproductive outcomes of vitrified and fresh sibling donor oocytes to date. We found that, when the number of oocytes available after warming is equal to the number of fresh oocytes, reproductive results including live birth are comparable. Consequently, the efficiency of vitrification must be taken into account to achieve the same reproductive outcomes as with fresh oocytes. We recommend implementing strict indicators of vitrification/warming efficiency in clinics and refining vitrification/warming protocols to maximize survival. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by intramural funding of Clínica EUGIN and by the Secretary for Universities and Research of the Ministry of Economy and Knowledge of the Government of Catalonia (GENCAT 2015 DI 048). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Boumerdassi ◽  
B Bennan. Smires ◽  
S Sarandi ◽  
M Sadoun ◽  
L Laup ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Do oocytes vitrified following in vitro maturation (IVM) or controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for oncologic fertility preservation (FP), lead to similar biological/clinical outcomes after thawing? Summary answer IVM is a valid option when chemotherapy is urgent or COH is contraindicated. We report the second live-birth worldwide after IVM in a cancer patient. What is known already FP aims at maintaining in cancer survivors, the possibility of childbearing using their own gametes. Currently, oocyte vitrification after COH remains the gold standard but IVM has recently emerged as an option for young women seeking FP, when COH is contraindicated or when cancer therapy is urgent. However, the actual competence of oocyte vitrified after IVM in cancer patients is not established. To date, only one live birth has been reported following frozen/warmed oocytes from an IVM cycle and no data is available comparing biological/clinical outcomes of warmed oocytes resulting either from IVM or COH cycles in cancer survivors. Study design, size, duration This retrospective cohort study from a single IVF unit aimed to analyze outcomes of all oocyte warming cycles in 38 cancer survivors having undergone oocyte vitrification for FP after COH or IVM. All of them had oocyte retrieval before administration of gonadotoxic treatment and returned after being cured for assisted reproduction treatments with their oncologist agreement, between January 2014 and December 2020. Participants/materials, setting, methods Thirty-eight oocytes warming cycles followed by ICSI respectively from 18 COH and 22 IVM cycles were analyzed. Survival, degeneration following ICSI, fertilization, top-quality and good-quality embryos, defined at day–2 respectively as 4 and 3–5 adequate-sized blastomeres, without multinucleation and containing &lt;20% of cytoplasmic fragments, implantation, biochemical (hCG&gt;100 UI/mL), clinical (intrauterine sac with fetal heart beat) and live birth rates were compared between IVM and COH cycles using appropriate statistical tests. Significance was set at 5%. Main results and the role of chance The indications for FP were breast cancer (n = 32), hematologic malignancies (n = 3), BRCA1 mutation (n = 2), borderline ovarian tumor (n = 1). The mean age and antral follicle count (AFC) at the time of FP was similar in both groups. The number of cryopreserved oocytes was significantly lower in the IVM group (5.7 ± 9.1) when compared with the COH group (11.4 ± 3.3; p = 0.009). Oocyte survival rates were similar in IVM (70 ± 24%) and COH groups (73 ± 28%). Although not significant, we reported a trend to better results in the COH group when compared with those of IVM group in terms of degeneration rate following ICSI (6 ± 10% vs. 14 ± 20%; p = 0.16), fertilization (72 ± 35% vs. 54 ± 27%; p = 0.08), day 2 top-quality (38 ± 32% vs. 21 ± 31%; p = 0.15) and good-quality embryo (46 ± 30% vs. 25 ± 30%; p = 0.06), implantation (18 ± 35% vs. 14 ± 36%; p = 0.79), biochemical (28 (5/18) vs. 14% (3/22); p = 0.26), clinical (22% (4/18) vs. 9% (2/22); p = 0.24), live birth rates (22% (4/18) vs. 5% (1/22); p = 0.06). Limitations, reasons for caution Caution is needed when interpreting these retrospective data obtained from a limited number of frozen-thawed cycles. Statistical power to compare IVF outcomes after COH and IVM is limited by the few women who return for oocyte reutilization. Wider implications of the findings: The present investigation is the largest evaluating the IVM-oocyte frozen-thawed cycles in a oncologic population. It suggests that a higher oocyte yield may be necessary in IVM, since fertilization/embryo-quality rates seem lower. Success rates and limiting factors of oocyte vitrification in this context is needed for providing proper oncofertility counseling. Trial registration number Not applicable


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Somayeh Keshavarzi ◽  
Azadeh Dokht Eftekhari ◽  
Hajar Vahabzadeh ◽  
Marzieh Mehrafza ◽  
Robabeh Taheripanah ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Vitrification has become the method of choice for cryopreservation of human embryos and gametes. There are multiple commercial media, containing different combinations and concentrations of cryoprotectants, available for vitrification and warming procedures. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare post-warming survival rate and clinical outcomes of cleavage stage embryos vitrified/warmed using two different commercial methods (CryoTouch and Cryotop) during intracytoplasmic sperm injection/frozen embryo transfer (ICSI/FET) cycles. This retrospective study evaluated a total of 173 FET cycles performed on 446 warmed cleavage stage embryos between January 2018 and December 2020. Post-warming embryo survival rate and clinical outcomes including clinical pregnancy, implantation, and live birth rates were calculated. Results The results showed no significant differences between two groups in terms of post-warming survival rate (p value = 0.5020), clinical pregnancy rate (p value = 0.7411), implantation rate (p value = 0.4694), and live birth rate (p value = 0.5737). Conclusions Collectively, high successful rates were observed in outcomes of vitrified/warmed cleavage stage embryos using both CryoTouch and Cryotop commercial methods.


Author(s):  
P Ciepiela ◽  
A J Dulęba ◽  
A Kario ◽  
K Chełstowski ◽  
D Branecka-Woźniak ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is the relationship between the anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), gonadotropin and androgen concentrations within a single follicle and live birth after ICSI and a transfer of an embryo developed from the matched oocyte? SUMMARY ANSWER Among the analysed markers on the day of oocyte retrieval, AMH concentration in follicular fluid (FF) is a predictor of live birth after single embryo transfer (SET). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY High serum concentrations of AMH and low FSH concentrations have been associated with a high chance of pregnancy after ART. Whether there are differences in the hormonal milieu for individual follicles and whether this impacts the laboratory and clinical outcomes for the individual oocyte developing within that follicle are unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This prospective cohort study included 322 individual FF samples from 199 infertile women scheduled for ICSI/SET over an 18-month period. Of these women, 76 provided a single FF sample, while 123 women contributed two FF samples taken from two different follicles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The first follicle aspirated in each ovary on the day of oocyte retrieval had the FF aspirated; the individual cumulus-oocyte complex (COC) was tracked, and the associated FF was stored at −80°C. FF AMH, FSH, LH, testosterone (T) and androstenedione (A2) levels were measured by mass spectrometry (androgens) and immunoassays. The laboratory and clinical outcomes for each individual oocyte were related to their unique follicle hormone concentrations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of the 322 oocytes with paired FF samples, 70 (21.7%) oocytes did not fertilise. From the remaining 252 2PN embryos, 88 (34.9%) were transferred as single embryos on Day 3; of the remaining 164, 78 developed into blastocysts, and 18 single blastocyst transfers were performed. Thus, a total of 106 transferred embryos had matching FF samples. An analysis of these individual FF concentrations revealed that AMH concentrations were higher in follicles in which the oocyte developed into a top quality (TQ) blastocyst (6.33 ± 5.52 ng/ml) and whose transfer led to live birth (7.49 ± 5.03 ng/ml) than those in which there was a failure of fertilisation (3.34 ± 2.21 ng/ml). In contrast, follicular FSH concentrations were the lower for oocytes that resulted in a TQ blastocyst (5.36 ± 2.20 mIU/ml) and live birth (5.60 ± 1.41 mIU/ml) than for oocytes that failed to fertilise (9.06 ± 3.36 mIU/ml). FF AMH was the only studied marker that increased the chance of live birth (odds ratio: 1.93 [95% CI: 1.40–2.67], P < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that FF AMH levels predicted live birth with a very high sensitivity (91.2%), specificity (91.7%) and an excellent AUC value of 0.954, whereas serum AMH level only had a fair (AUC = 0.711) significance as a predictor for live birth after ICSI/SET. The predictive capabilities of the interfollicular markers were not limited to the TQ embryos or blastocysts; they applied to all SET cycles. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Whether an altered intrafollicular hormonal environment reflects the developmental capacity of the oocyte or defines cannot be determined from this cross-sectional analysis. Inclusion of 21 subjects with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may have biased the findings due to a unique intrafollicular milieu associated with PCOS. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our results suggest that highly competent human oocytes have an FF composition of AMH, FSH, T and A2 that is close to that in a natural cycle. Also, the relationships between intrafollicular AMH, gonadotropin and androgen levels in the same follicle support the hypothesis that FF AMH concentration may reflect granulosa cell proliferation during gonadotropin-stimulated follicle growth. Finally, the serum AMH concentration is markedly lower than the FF AMH concentration, with a moderate correlation between serum and FF AMH, implying ovarian follicle autonomy with regards to its secretory products. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The National Science Centre of Poland supported this work (grant number: N N407 217 040). The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.


MedPharmRes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Vu Ho ◽  
Toan Pham ◽  
Tuong Ho ◽  
Lan Vuong

IVF carries a considerable physical, emotional and financial burden. Therefore, it would be useful to be able to predict the likelihood of success for each couple. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to develop a prediction model to estimate the probability of a live birth at 12 months after one completed IVF cycle (all fresh and frozen embryo transfers from the same oocyte retrieval). We analyzed data collected from 2600 women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) at a single center in Vietnam between April 2014 and December 2015. All patients received gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist stimulation, followed by fresh and/or frozen embryo transfer (FET) on Day 3. Using Cox regression analysis, five predictive factors were identified: female age, total dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone used, type of trigger, fresh or FET during the first transfer, and number of subsequent FET after the first transfer. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the final model was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60‒0.65) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.57‒0.63) for the validation cohort. There was no significant difference between the predicted and observed probabilities of live birth (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p > 0.05). The model developed had similar discrimination to existing models and could be implemented in clinical practice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanglin Wu ◽  
Songying Zhang ◽  
Xiaona Lin ◽  
Shasha Wang ◽  
Ping Zhou

Abstract Background Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS. Methods A systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain. Conclusion Delays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042395
Author(s):  
Simone Cornelisse ◽  
Liliana Ramos ◽  
Brigitte Arends ◽  
Janneke J Brink-van der Vlugt ◽  
Jan Peter de Bruin ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen–thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited.Methods and analysisWe have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients’ treatment burden.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Register (NL 6857).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document