Cryopreserved oocyte versus fresh oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles, United States, 2013

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Sara Crawford, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.; Sheree L. Boulet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.; Jennifer Fay Kawwass, Emory University; Denise J. Jamieson, Emory University; Dmitry M. Kissin, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2017-01-01
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Publication Version: Author Accepted Manuscript (After Peer Review)
• Copyright Statement: ©2016 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.002
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Fertility and Sterility
• ISSN: 0015-0282
• Volume: 107
• Issue: 1
• Start Page: 110
• End Page: 118
• Keywords: DONATION PROGRAM; egg freezing; Reproductive Biology; DONOR OOCYTES; Obstetrics & Gynecology; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; LIVE BIRTH; EFFICIENCY; OUTCOMES; VITRIFICATION; Assisted reproductive technology (ART); vitrification; Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; in vitro fertilization (IVF)
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Epidemiology; Health Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Objective To compare characteristics, explore predictors, and compare assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle, transfer, and pregnancy outcomes of autologous and donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles with fresh oocyte cycles. Design Retrospective cohort study from the National ART Surveillance System. Setting Fertility treatment centers. Patient(s) Fresh embryo cycles initiated in 2013 utilizing embryos created with fresh and cryopreserved, autologous and donor oocytes. Intervention(s) Cryopreservation of oocytes versus fresh. Main Outcomes Measure(s) Cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates per cycle, transfer, and/or pregnancy. Result(s) There was no evidence of differences in cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, or live birth rates between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles had a decreased risk of cancellation before transfer (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.96) as well as decreased likelihood of pregnancy (aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81–0.95) and live birth (aRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95); however, there was no evidence of differences in implantation, pregnancy, or live birth rates when cycles were restricted to those proceeding to transfer. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles proceeding to pregnancy had a decreased risk of miscarriage (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.97) and higher live birth rate (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01–1.09) with the transfer of one embryo, but higher miscarriage rate (aRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.54) and lower live birth rate (aRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92–0.99) with the transfer of two or more. Conclusion(s) There was no evidence of differences in ART outcomes between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. There was evidence of differences in per-cycle and per-pregnancy outcomes between donor cryopreserved and fresh oocyte cycles, but not in per-transfer outcomes.