Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on June 10, 2008
Human Reproduction 2008 23(9):1976-1982; doi:10.1093/humrep/den222
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/9/1976    most recent
den222v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Hum. Reprod.
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Balaban, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gardner, D.K.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Balaban, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gardner, D.K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

A randomized controlled study of human Day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation{dagger}

B. Balaban1, B. Urman1,4, B. Ata1, A. Isiklar1, M.G. Larman2,3, R. Hamilton2 and D.K. Gardner2,3

1 Assisted Reproduction Unit, American Hospital of Istanbul, Guzelbahce Sokak 20, Nisantasi, Istanbul 34365, Turkey 2 Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, Lone Tree, CO, USA

4 Correspondence address. Tel: +90-212-3112000; Fax: +90-212-3112339; E-mail: burman{at}superonline.com

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare two methods of cryopreservation for the cleavage-stage human embryo: slow freezing and vitrification.

METHODS: A total of 466 Day 3 embryos, donated with consent, underwent cryopreservation by either slow freezing in straws or vitrification using the cryoloop. The vitrification procedure did not include dimethyl sulfoxide, but rather employed ethylene glycol and 1,2-propanediol as the cryoprotectants. Survival, embryonic metabolism and subsequent development to the blastocyst were used to determine the efficacy of the two procedures.

RESULTS: Significantly, more embryos survived the vitrification procedure (222/234, 94.8%) than slow freezing (206/232, 88.7%; P < 0.05). Consistent with this observation, pyruvate uptake was significantly greater in the vitrification group, reflecting a higher metabolic rate. Development to the blastocyst was also higher following vitrification (134/222, 60.3%) than following freezing (106/206, 49.5%; P < 0.05). In a separate cohort of 73 patients who had their supernumerary embryos cyropreserved with vitrification, the resulting implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate were 30 and 49%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of metabolism revealed that vitrification had less impact on the metabolic rate of the embryo than freezing, which was reflected in higher survival rate and subsequent development in vitro. Excellent pregnancy outcomes followed the warming and transfer of vitrified cleavage-stage embryos. These data provide further evidence that vitrification imparts less trauma to cells and is, therefore, a more effective means of cryopreserving the human embryo than conventional slow freezing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00608010 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .

Key words: cryopreservation/vitrification/propanediol/pyruvate uptake/blastocyst development


{dagger} Preliminary results of this trial have been presented at the 63rd ASRM meeting, Washington, USA, October 2007 and at the Nordic IVF Laboratory Society Meeting, Helsinki, Finland, November 2007.

3 Present address: Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Submitted on February 25, 2008; resubmitted on May 9, 2008; accepted on May 13, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Hum. Reprod.:

Editor's Choice

Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1963. [Extract] [Full Text]  





Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.