Emotions towards potential genetic offspring among oocyte donors: a cross-sectional study

Background The presence of maternal emotions towards the offspring resulting from assisted reproductive techniques (ART) has been previously reported in oocyte donors. However, there is limited information about the presence of these emotions in oocyte donors during the ART process and before pregnancy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the emotions of oocyte donor women towards the potential genetic offspring and to compare them with women treated with ART by using own oocytes. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on 100 women who were divided into two groups of oocyte donors and those treated with ART and using autologous oocyte. At the time of oocyte retrieval. Using a validated questionnaire, the emotions toward potential offspring (EPO) resulting from ART and its three dimensions (including imagination, sense of ownership, and importance of treatment outcome) were measured and compared in two groups. Results Comparison of the EPO in the two groups showed that the emotions in all three dimensions were lower in oocyte donors than the other group (p < 0.001). Moreover, in oocyte donors, the mean score of the scale of the importance of treatment outcome dimension was higher than the other two scales (p < 0.001). Conclusion The results of the study showed that there is a significant emotion toward the potential offspring in oocyte donors. The presence of these emotions thus should be considered in formulating the ethical charter of ART by using oocyte donation.

Is It Possible to Expand Oocyte Donors by Decreasing Number of Oocytes for Own Use? Insights From a Large Single-Center Study

BackgroundCurrently, in China, only women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles can donate oocytes to others, but at least 15 oocytes must be kept for their own treatment. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether oocyte donation compromises the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of donors and whether it is possible to expand oocyte donors’ crowd.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study from August 2015 to July 2017 including a total of 2,144 patients, in which 830 IVF–embryo transfer (IVF-ET) patients were eligible for oocyte donation and 1,314 patients met all other oocyte donation criteria but had fewer oocytes retrieved (10–17 oocytes). All 830 patients were advised to donate approximately three to five oocytes to others and were eventually divided into two groups: the oocyte donation group (those who donated) and the control group (those who declined). The basic patient parameters and CLBR, as well as the number of supernumerary embryos after achieving live birth, were compared. These two factors were also compared in all patients (2,144) with oocyte ≥10.ResultsIn 830 IVF-ET patients who were eligible for oocyte donation, only the oocyte number was significantly different between two groups, and the donation group had more than the control group (25.49 ± 5.76 vs. 22.88 ± 5.11, respectively; p = 0.09). No significant differences were found between the two groups in other factors. The results indicate that the live birth rate in the donation group was higher than that in the control group (81.31% vs. 82.95%, p = 0.371), without significance. In addition, CLBR can still reach as high as 73% when the oocyte number for own use was 10. Supernumerary embryos also increased as the oocyte number increased in all patients (oocyte ≥10).ConclusionsCurrently, oocyte donation did not compromise CLBR, and oocyte donation can decrease the waste of embryos. In addition, in patients with 10 oocytes retrieved, the CLBR was still good (73%). Thus, it is possible to expand oocyte donors if the number of oocyte kept for own use was decreased from 15 to 10 after enough communication with patients.

P-631 Embryo euploidy rates following follicular or luteal start ovarian stimulation. A prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation ovarian stimulation cycles

Study question Is there any difference in embryo euploidy rates following luteal phase phase (LS) and follicular phase (FS) start ovarian stimulation. Summary answer The number of euploid blastocysts and embryo euploidy rate are comparable when comparing FS and LS. What is known already Random start ovarian stimulation (starting at any time of the cycle) has been traditionally used in women undergoing urgent fertility preservation for medical reason. Although there is accumulating evidence that in infertile women, LS can result in equivalent number of oocytes and embryos as compared with FS, no study has evaluated the effect of luteal phase start ovarian stimulation on embryo euploidy rates. The current study is the first prospective study designed to evaluate embryo euploidy rates in donors undergoing two identical consecutive ovarian stimulation protocols within a period of 6 months starting either in the (FS), or (LS). Study design, size, duration In a prospective study, conducted between May 2018 and January 2020, 40 oocyte donors underwent two consecutive ovarian stimulation protocols within a period of 6 months with an identical fixed GnRH antagonist protocol starting either in the early follicular (FS), or and luteal menstrual cycle phase (LS). Participants/materials, setting, methods All participants underwent two identical consecutive ovarian stimulation cycles with 150μg corifollitropin alfa followed by 200 IU rFSH in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol either in the FS or LS. Six MII oocytes from the same oocyte donor, from each stimulation cycle, were allocated to the recipients and were inseminated with the same sperm sample (recipients partner sperm or donor sperm). Embryos were cultivated to blastocyst stage followed by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Main results and the role of chance When comparing FP with LP, the duration of ovarian stimulation was significantly shorter (9.68± 2.09 vs 10.93± 1.55 days), 95% CI [-1.95; -0.55] and a higher total additional dose of daily recFSH was significantly lower (526.14± 338.94 IU vs 726.14± 366.27), 95% CI [-315,12; -84,88] when CPT was administered in the luteal phase. . There were no differences in the hormone values on the triggering day (Estradiol 2137.61±1198.25 pg/ml vs 2362.96±1472.89); 95% CI [-1160.45;709.76]. Overall no differences were observed in the number of oocytes (24.84± 11.200 vs 24.27± 9.08); 95% CI[-2,61; 3.75] and MII oocytes (21.41±10.19 vs 21.59± 8.81), 95%CI [-2.72; 2.35] retrieved between FP and LP cycles in the oocytes donors. Following oocyte allocation and fertilization to the recipients, a total of 245 blastocysts were biopsied (blastocyst formation rate 245/408, 60.05%), 117 in FP group and 128 in LP group. The overall blastocyst euploidy rate was 59.18% . There were no differences in the number of euploid embryos between FS (1.59±1.32) and LS (1.70±1.29), mean difference 0.11, 95%CI [-0.65; 0.46]. Finally, there were no differences in the percentage of euploid embryos per oocytes inseminated between FS [70/287 (24.4%)] and LP [75/278 (24.7%), mean difference -0.027, 95%CI [-0.11; 0.06]. Limitations, reasons for caution The study was performed in oocyte derived from potentially fertile young oocyte donors thus caution is needed when extrapolating the results in oocytes derived from infertile women of older age. Wider implications of the findings Luteal phase stimulation does not alter embryo euploidy status as compared with follicular phase stimulation and thus it appears that it can be safely used not only in cases of urgent medical fertility preservation but also in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Trial registration number Clinical Trials Gov (NCT03555942).