Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Human Oocyte Preservation Experience (HOPE) Registry: evaluation of cryopreservation techniques and oocyte source on outcomes.
Nagy, Zsolt Peter; Anderson, Robert E; Feinberg, Eve C; Hayward, Brooke; Mahony, Mary C.
Afiliação
  • Nagy ZP; Reproductive Biology Associates, 1100 Johnson Ferry Rd #200, Atlanta, GA, 30342, USA. zsolt.peter.nagy@gmail.com.
  • Anderson RE; Southern California Center for Reproductive Medicine, 361 Hospital Rd #333, Newport Beach, CA, 92663, USA.
  • Feinberg EC; Fertility Centers of Illinois, 67 Park Ave W #190, Highland Park, IL, 60035, USA.
  • Hayward B; EMD Serono, Inc., One Technology Pl., Rockland, MA, 02370, USA.
  • Mahony MC; EMD Serono, Inc., One Technology Pl., Rockland, MA, 02370, USA.
Reprod Biol Endocrinol ; 15(1): 10, 2017 Feb 07.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28173814
BACKGROUND: This prospective, Phase IV, multicenter, observational registry of assisted reproductive technology clinics in the USA studied outcomes of first cycles using thawed/warmed cryopreserved (by slow-freezing/vitrification) oocytes (autologous or donor). METHODS: Patients were followed up through implantation, clinical pregnancy, and birth outcomes. The main outcome measure was live birth rate (LBR), defined as the ratio of live births to oocytes thawed/warmed minus the number of embryos cryopreserved for each cycle, averaged over all thawing cycles. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was also evaluated, and was defined as the presence of a fetal sac with heart activity, as detected by ultrasound scan performed on Day 35-42 after embryo transfer. RESULTS: A total of 16 centers enrolled 204 patients; data from 193 patients were available for analyses. For donor oocytes, in the slow-freezing (n = 40) versus vitrification (n = 94) groups, respectively, CPR and LBR were significantly different: 32.4% versus 62.6%, and 25.0% versus 52.1%; outcomes from Day 3 transfers did not differ significantly. For vitrified oocytes, in the autologous (n = 46) versus donor (n = 94) group, respectively, CPR and LBR were significantly different: 30.0% versus 62.6% and 17.4% versus 52.1%. This was largely due to a significant difference in CPR with Day 5/6 transfers. CONCLUSIONS: In two subgroup data analyses, in women who received cryopreserved oocytes from donors, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in cycles using oocytes cryopreserved via vitrification versus slow-freezing, reflecting differences in methodologies and more Day 5/6 transfers; in women who received vitrified oocytes, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in cycles using donor versus autologous oocytes with Day 5/6 transfers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00699400 . Registered June 13, 2008.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oócitos / Criopreservação / Sistema de Registros / Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oócitos / Criopreservação / Sistema de Registros / Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article