Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare slow freezing (SF) and vitrification (VT) techniques for day 3 embryo cryopreservation in infertile couples.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 5613 infertile patients, with 7862 frozen-thawed day 3 embryos and 3845 vitrified-warmed day 3 embryos, from 2010 to 2014, at a single center. The rates of embryo survival, pregnancy, implantation, miscarriage, live birth, and live birth weight were compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 5613 cycles with 5520 transfers were analyzed. Using SF, the rates of overall embryo survival and fully intact blastomeres were lower than those in VT (91.5 vs. 97.4 % and 68.7 vs. 92.3 %, respectively). The rate of good quality embryos after thawing/warming was lower in SF than in VT. In single frozen embryo transfer cycles (FETs), the pregnancy and implantation rates were similar between the two groups (35.0 vs. 40.8 % and 34.6 vs. 35.9 %, respectively). In double FETs, the pregnancy rate per cycle was also similar between the groups (58.8 vs. 58.4 %). The implantation rate per embryo transfer was significantly higher with SF than with VT (38.8 vs. 34.6 %). With adjustment for maternal age and the number of good quality embryos, differences in implantation rate remained significant (adjusted P value, SF vs. VT P < 0.05). No independent effect was found for the method of cryopreservation on the pregnancy rate. No significant differences in the rates of miscarriage, live birth, and live birth weight were observed between the two techniques.

Conclusions

Despite the significantly low embryo survival rate, fully intact blastomere rate, and good quality embryo rate in SF, the pregnancy and implantation rates were not adversely affected in single and double FETs. SF yielded an equivalent miscarriage rate, live birth rate, and live birth weight compared with VT. The SF protocol to cryopreserve day 3 embryos still should be considered.

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. Michelmann HW, Nayudu P. Cryopreservation of human embryos. Cell Tissue Bank. 2006;7:135–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu K, Zhao H, Liu H, Li M, Ma S, Li C, et al. Day 3 ET, single blastocyst transfer (SBT) or frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET): which is preferable for high responder patients in IVF/ICSI cycles? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:275–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roy TK, Bradley CK, Bowman MC, McArthur SJ. Single-embryo transfer of vitrified-warmed blastocysts yields equivalent live-birth rates and improved neonatal outcomes compared with fresh transfers. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1294–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shaw JM, Jones GM. Terminology associated with vitrification and other cryopreservation procedures for oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:583–605.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305:707–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:19–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. 2013;28:2943–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liebermann J, Nawroth F, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Tucker MJ. Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol Reprod. 2002;67:1671–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which one is better? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:270–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Movaghar B. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(6):347–54.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomized controlled study of human day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1976–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilding MG, Capobianco C, Montanaro N, Kabili G, Di Matteo L, Fusco E, et al. Human cleavage-stage embryo vitrification is comparable to slow rate cryopreservation in cycles of assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:549–54.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:209–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhu H, Liu L, Yang L, Xue Y, Tong X, Jiang L, et al. The effect of progesterone level prior to oocyte retrieval on the numbers of oocytes retrieved and embryo quality in IVF treatment cycles: an analysis of 2,978 cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1183–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Veeck LL. An atlas of human gametes and conceptuses: an illustrated reference for assisted reproductive technology. Preembryo grading and degree of cytoplasmic fragmentation. New York: Parthenon Publishing; 1999. p. 46–51.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. 2000;15:175–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xue Y, Tong X, Jiang L, Zhu H, Yang L, Zhang S. Effect of vitrification versus slow freezing of human day 3 embryos on β-hCG levels. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1037–43.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kyuwa S, Nishikawa T, Kaneko T, Nakashima T, Kawano K, Nakamura N, et al. Experimental evaluation of cross-contamination between cryotubes containing mouse 2-cell embryos and murine pathogens in liquid nitrogen tanks. Exp Anim. 2003;52:67–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Morris GJ. The origin, ultrastructure, and microbiology of the sediment accumulating in liquid nitrogen storage vessels. Cryobiology. 2005;50:231–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fasano G, Fontenelle N, Vannin AS, Biramane J, Devreker F, Englert Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing two vitrification methods versus slow-freezing for cryopreservation of human cleavage stage embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(2):241–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Buccheri M, Maggiulli R, Sapienza F, Romano S, et al. The worldwide frozen embryo reservoir: methodologies to achieve optimal results. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1221:32–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Human Reprod Update. 2012;18:536–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Edgar DH, Karani J, Gook DA. Increasing dehydration of human cleavage-stage embryos prior to slow cooling significantly increases cryosurvival. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:521–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jericho H, Wilton L, Gook DA, Edgar DH. A modified cryopreservation method increases the survival of human biopsied cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(3):568–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Edgar DH, Archer J, McBain J, Bourne H. Embryonic factors affecting outcome from single cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:718–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Li Y, Chen ZJ, Yang HJ, Zhong WX, Ma SY, Li M. Comparison of vitrification and slow-freezing of human day 3 cleavage stage embryos: post-vitrification development and pregnancy outcomes. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2007;42:753–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the other investigators and physicians who made contributions to this study. This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81270657), the Natural Science Program of Zhejiang (Y14H040012), and the Science and Technology Department Program of Zhejiang (2013C33145).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3# East Qing Chun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China

    Hai-Yan Zhu, Ya-Mei Xue, Ling-Yun Yang, Ling-Ying Jiang, Chao Ling, Xiao-Mei Tong & Song-Ying Zhang

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Show Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3# East Qing Chun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China

    Song-Ying Zhang

Authors
  1. Hai-Yan Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ya-Mei Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ling-Yun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ling-Ying Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chao Ling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiao-Mei Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Song-Ying Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Song-Ying Zhang.

Additional information

Capsule

The comparable clinical pregnancy and live birth rate between slow frozen and vitrified embryos in this retrospective study provides further evidence for the continued use of slow freezing of day 3 embryos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, HY., Xue, YM., Yang, LY. et al. Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 1371–1377 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0545-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0545-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation