Skip to main content
Log in

Egg donation of vitrified oocytes bank produces similar pregnancy rates by blastocyst transfer when compared to fresh cycle

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

Abstract

Purpose

Advances in reproductive techniques, mainly the introduction of oocyte vitrification, have provided the opportunity to conceive from oocyte banks. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of fresh and vitrified oocytes in an egg donation program following blastocyst transfer.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included 504 oocyte donation cycles. All donor women were younger than 30 years of age. The recipient cycles were divided into two groups: fresh oocytes (n = 78) or vitrified oocytes (n = 426). All oocytes were fertilized by ICSI using ejaculated sperm, followed by blastocyst transfer. Endometrium preparation was performed with estradiol valerate plus micronized progesterone according to standard protocols.

Results

Recipients were of similar age (fresh 42.0 ± 4.5 years vs vitrified 41.8 ± 4.8 years; p = 0.790). The fresh group received more mature oocytes for injection compared to the vitrified group (10.1 ± 2.8 vs 9.2 ± 2.2; p = 0.005). The two pronuclei (2PN) rate (74.5 vs 77.4%; p = 0.195) and blastocyst rate (48.8 vs 51.6%; 0.329) were similar between the fresh and vitrified groups, respectively. The rates of clinical pregnancy were 60.9% in the fresh and 59.0% in the vitrified groups (p = 0.771).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that vitrified oocytes result in similar pregnancy rates when compared to fresh oocytes with blastocyst transfer in an egg donation program. Moreover, vitrified oocytes may allow for a better cycle schedule, starting with a lower number of oocytes to be fertilized. Therefore, we hypothesize that egg banks with vitrified oocytes could be safely utilized in an egg donation program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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. Chen C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet. 1986;1:884–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:37–43.

  3. Ubaldi F, Anniballo R, Romano S, Baroni E, Albricci L, Colamaria S, et al. Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate achieved with oocyte vitrification and cleavage stage transfer without embryo selection in a standard infertility program. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1199–205.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:66–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. De Munck N, Belva F, Van de Velde H, Verheyen G, Stoop D. Closed oocyte vitrification and storage in an oocyte donation programme: obstetric and neonatal outcome. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(5):1024–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cobo A, Serra V, Garrido N, Olmo I, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1006–15. e4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Perez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1657–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grifo JA, Noyes N. Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:391–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nagy ZP, Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Bernal DP, Elsner CW, Mitchell-Leef D, et al. Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:520–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2239–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340:17–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chian RC, Huang JY, Tan SL, Lucena E, Saa A, Rojas A, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcome in 200 infants conceived from vitrified oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;16:608–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;18:769–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Outcomes of fresh and cryopreserved oocyte donation. JAMA. 2015;314:623–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the team from Huntington Reproductive Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil, for excellent support with patients and procedures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thais S. Domingues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Domingues, T.S., Aquino, A.P., Barros, B. et al. Egg donation of vitrified oocytes bank produces similar pregnancy rates by blastocyst transfer when compared to fresh cycle. J Assist Reprod Genet 34, 1553–1557 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1017-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1017-0

Keywords

Navigation