About this item:

127 Views | 76 Downloads

Author Notes:

Reprint requests: Sara Crawford, Ph.D., National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F74, Atlanta, Georgia 30341(sgv0@cdc.gov)

S.C. has nothing to disclose.

S.L.B. has nothing to disclose.

J.F.K. has nothing to disclose.

D.J.J. has nothing to disclose.

D.M.K. has nothing to disclose.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Subjects:

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Obstetrics & Gynecology
  • Reproductive Biology
  • Assisted reproductive technology (ART)
  • egg freezing
  • in vitro fertilization (IVF)
  • vitrification
  • DONATION PROGRAM
  • EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT
  • DONOR OOCYTES
  • LIVE BIRTH
  • VITRIFICATION
  • EFFICIENCY
  • OUTCOMES

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

Tools:

Journal Title:

Fertility and Sterility

Volume:

Volume 107, Number 1

Publisher:

, Pages 110-118

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review

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.

Copyright information:

©2016 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Export to EndNote