Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Live birth rate following a euploid blastocyst transfer is not affected by double vitrification and warming at cleavage or blastocyst stage

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

Abstract

Purpose

To compare reproductive outcomes following a euploid embryo transfer, between those embryos vitrified-warmed twice to those vitrified-warmed once.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed 694 single euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). For cycles in group 1 (N = 451), embryos were biopsied for PGT-A at blastocyst stage and vitrified. For cycles in group 2 (N = 146), embryos were vitrified at blastocyst stage, before being warmed and biopsied for PGT-A and vitrified again. For cycles in group 3 (N = 97), embryos were vitrified on day-3, before being warmed, cultured to day-5 and biopsied for PGT-A and re-vitrified.

Results

The pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and livebirth rate in group 2 were not statistically different to group 1 (pregnancy rate, adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.62–1.91; clinical pregnancy, aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58–1.37; live birth rate, aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56–1.28). There was also no significant difference between group 3 and group 1, with similar pregnancy rate (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 0.74–1.99), clinical pregnancy rate (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75–1.96) and live birth rate (aOR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.73–1.80). There was no significant difference in miscarriage rates between all three groups. The age at the oocyte collection, embryo quality and day of biopsy were associated with pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and live birth rate.

Conclusion

This study suggests that vitrifying and warming embryos twice at blastocyst or at cleavage and then blastocyst stage, can lead to similar reproductive outcomes to embryos vitrified-warmed once, after a single euploid embryo transfer.

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

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Fertility treatment 2017: trends and figures. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2019. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/3189/fertility-treatment-2017-trends-and-figures.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2021.

  2. L’Heveder A, Jones BP, Naja R, Serhal P, Ben Nagi J. Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: the past, present and future. Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;22:293–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Practice Committees of the ASRM and the SART. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) - Traffic light rating. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2021. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/treatment-add-ons/pre-implantation-genetic-testing-for-aneuploidy-pgt-a/. Accessed 21 March 2021.

  5. Bellver J, Bosch E, Espinós JJ, Fabregues F, Fontes J, García-Velasco J, et al. Second-generation preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in assisted reproduction: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39:905–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.07.037.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ben Nagi J, Serhal P, Wells D, Jones BP. Preimplantation genetic screening should be used in all in vitro fertilisation cycles in women over the age of 35 years: FOR: optimising reproductive outcomes is cost-effective and minimises adverse sequelae. BJOG. 2019;126:1554. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15941.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumasako Y, Otsu E, Utsunomiya T, Araki Y. The efficacy of the transfer of twice frozen-thawed embryos with the vitrification method. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:383–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Koch J, Costello MF, Chapman MG, Kilani S. Twice-frozen embryos are no detriment to pregnancy success: a retrospective comparative study. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:58–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.04.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Murakami M, Egashira A, Murakami K, Araki Y, Kuramoto T. Perinatal outcome of twice-frozen-thawed embryo transfers: a clinical follow-up study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2648–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zheng X, Chen Y, Yan J, Wu Y, Zhuang X, Lin S, et al. Effect of repeated cryopreservation on human embryo developmental potential. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:627–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.08.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang M, Jiang J, Xi Q, Li D, Ren X, Li Z, et al. Repeated cryopreservation process impairs embryo implantation potential but does not affect neonatal outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.11.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Neal SA, Sun L, Jalas C, Morin SJ, Molinaro TA, Scott RT. When next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) yields an inconclusive report: diagnostic results and clinical outcomes after re biopsy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:2103–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01550-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bradley CK, Livingstone M, Traversa MV, McArthur SJ. Impact of multiple blastocyst biopsy and vitrification-warming procedures on pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:999–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.09.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aluko A, Vaughan DA, Modest AM, Penzias AS, Hacker MR, Thornton K, et al. Multiple cryopreservation-warming cycles, coupled with blastocyst biopsy, negatively affect IVF outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42:572–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.11.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Theodorou E, Jones BP, Cawood S, Heath C, Serhal P, Ben-Nagi J. Adding a low-quality blastocyst to a high-quality blastocyst for a double embryo transfer does not decrease pregnancy and live birth rate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1124–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00518-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ben-Nagi J, Wells D, Doye K, Loutradi K, Exeter H, Drew E, et al. Karyomapping: a single centre’s experience from application of methodology to ongoing pregnancy and live-birth rates. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:264–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1520–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Department of Psychology New York University; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chen H, Cohen P, Chen S. How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2010;39:860–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610911003650383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Michael Wilson J, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Neal SA, Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Werner MD, Morin SJ, Tao X, et al. High relative deoxyribonucleic acid content of trophectoderm biopsy adversely affects pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:731-6.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Farhi J, Elizur S, Yonish M, Seidman DS, Shulman A, Schiff E, et al. Assessment of a double freezing approach in the management of surplus embryos in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38:517–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilding M, Terribile M, Parisi I, Nargund G. Thaw, biopsy and refreeze strategy for PGT-A on previously cryopreserved embryos. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2019;11:223–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reig A, Franasiak J, Scott RT Jr, Seli E. The impact of age beyond ploidy: outcome data from 8175 euploid single embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01739-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Irani M, Zaninovic N, Rosenwaks Z, Xu K. Does maternal age at retrieval influence the implantation potential of euploid blastocysts? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220:379.e1-e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Irani M, O’Neill C, Palermo GD, Xu K, Zhang C, Qin X, et al. Blastocyst development rate influences implantation and live birth rates of similarly graded euploid blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:95-102.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Boynukalin FK, Gultomruk M, Cavkaytar S, Turgut E, Findikli N, Serdarogullari M, et al. Parameters impacting the live birth rate per transfer after frozen single euploid blastocyst transfer. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0227619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227619.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Shear MA, Vaughan DA, Modest AM, Seidler EA, Leung AQ, Hacker MR, et al. Blasts from the past: is morphology useful in PGT-A tested and untested frozen embryo transfers? Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41:981–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.07.014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Cimadomo D, Soscia D, Vaiarelli A, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, et al. Looking past the appearance: a comprehensive description of the clinical contribution of poor-quality blastocysts to increase live birth rates during cycles with aneuploidy testing. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1206–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Levi-Setti PE, Soscia D, Orlando G, Albani E, et al. Associations of blastocyst features, trophectoderm biopsy and other laboratory practice with post-warming behavior and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1992–2001. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lou H, Li N, Guan Y, Zhang Y, Hao D, Cui S. Association between morphologic grading and implantation rate of Euploid blastocyst. J Ovarian Res. 2021;14:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-021-00770-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Centre for Reproductive & Genetic Health (CRGH), Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5QS, UK

    Efstathios Theodorou, Daniella F. Cardenas Armas, Carleen Heath, Paul Serhal & Jara Ben-Nagi

  2. Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, W12 0HS, UK

    Benjamin P. Jones

  3. Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK

    Jara Ben-Nagi

Authors
  1. Efstathios Theodorou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin P. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniella F. Cardenas Armas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carleen Heath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Serhal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jara Ben-Nagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Efstathios Theodorou conceived and designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft manuscript. Efstathios Theodorou, Daniella Cardenas and Carleen Heath collected and verified the data. Benjamin Jones and Jara Ben Nagi helped write and revise the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed, revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Efstathios Theodorou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

As this is an observational study the Internal Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Theodorou, E., Jones, B.P., Cardenas Armas, D.F. et al. Live birth rate following a euploid blastocyst transfer is not affected by double vitrification and warming at cleavage or blastocyst stage. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 987–993 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02440-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02440-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation