Cargando…
Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates that closed vitrification has been successfully used in the cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos. Little information is available regarding the neonatal outcome of closed blastocysts vitrification. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effective...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24256633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-107 |
_version_ | 1782343520740179968 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Yuan Zheng, Xiaoying Yan, Jie Qiao, Jie Liu, Ping |
author_facet | Chen, Yuan Zheng, Xiaoying Yan, Jie Qiao, Jie Liu, Ping |
author_sort | Chen, Yuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates that closed vitrification has been successfully used in the cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos. Little information is available regarding the neonatal outcome of closed blastocysts vitrification. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of blastocyst vitrification using a high-security closed vitrification system compared with an open vitrification system. METHODS: A total of 332 vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles between April 2010 and May 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. The post-thaw survival rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and neonatal outcome were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the open vitrification group and the close vitrification group regarding the post-thaw survival rate (98% versus 95.8%), clinical pregnancy rate (47.6% versus 42.2%), implantation rate (42.9% versus 35.6%), and live birth rate (39.8% versus 32.1%). In total, 332 warming cycles produced 131 healthy babies. There were no significant differences in the mean gestational age, the birth weight, and the birth length between the two groups. No adverse neonatal outcomes were observed in the children born after the transfer of closed vitrified blastocysts compared with the transfer of open vitrified blastocysts. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that blastocyst vitrification using a closed vitrification device seems safe and effective with results comparable to those obtained through open vitrification. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4225498 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42254982014-11-11 Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system Chen, Yuan Zheng, Xiaoying Yan, Jie Qiao, Jie Liu, Ping Reprod Biol Endocrinol Research BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates that closed vitrification has been successfully used in the cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos. Little information is available regarding the neonatal outcome of closed blastocysts vitrification. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of blastocyst vitrification using a high-security closed vitrification system compared with an open vitrification system. METHODS: A total of 332 vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles between April 2010 and May 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. The post-thaw survival rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and neonatal outcome were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the open vitrification group and the close vitrification group regarding the post-thaw survival rate (98% versus 95.8%), clinical pregnancy rate (47.6% versus 42.2%), implantation rate (42.9% versus 35.6%), and live birth rate (39.8% versus 32.1%). In total, 332 warming cycles produced 131 healthy babies. There were no significant differences in the mean gestational age, the birth weight, and the birth length between the two groups. No adverse neonatal outcomes were observed in the children born after the transfer of closed vitrified blastocysts compared with the transfer of open vitrified blastocysts. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that blastocyst vitrification using a closed vitrification device seems safe and effective with results comparable to those obtained through open vitrification. BioMed Central 2013-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4225498/ /pubmed/24256633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-107 Text en Copyright © 2013 Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Chen, Yuan Zheng, Xiaoying Yan, Jie Qiao, Jie Liu, Ping Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system |
title | Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system |
title_full | Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system |
title_fullStr | Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system |
title_full_unstemmed | Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system |
title_short | Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system |
title_sort | neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24256633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-107 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenyuan neonataloutcomesafterthetransferofvitrifiedblastocystsclosedversusopenvitrificationsystem AT zhengxiaoying neonataloutcomesafterthetransferofvitrifiedblastocystsclosedversusopenvitrificationsystem AT yanjie neonataloutcomesafterthetransferofvitrifiedblastocystsclosedversusopenvitrificationsystem AT qiaojie neonataloutcomesafterthetransferofvitrifiedblastocystsclosedversusopenvitrificationsystem AT liuping neonataloutcomesafterthetransferofvitrifiedblastocystsclosedversusopenvitrificationsystem |