Double vitrification and warming does not compromise the chance of live birth after single unbiopsied blastocyst transfer.

STUDY QUESTION: Does double vitrification and thawing of an embryo compromise the chance of live birth after a single blastocyst transfer? SUMMARY ANSWER: The live birth rate (LBR) obtained after double vitrification was comparable to that obtained after single vitrification. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Double vitrification-warming (DVW) is commonly practiced to accommodate surplus viable embryos suitable for transfer, to allow retesting of inconclusively diagnosed blastocysts in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), and to circumvent limitations associated with national policies on embryo culture in certain countries. Despite its popularity, the evidence concerning the impact of DVW practice on ART outcomes is limited and lacking credibility. This is the first thorough investigation of clinical pregnancy and LBR following DVW in the case where the first round of vitrification occurred at the zygote stage and the second round occurred at the blastocyst stage in the absence of biopsy. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a retrospective observational analysis of n = 407 single blastocyst transfers whereby embryos created by IVF/ICSI were vitrified-warmed once (single vitrification-warming (SVW) n = 310) or twice (DVW, n = 97) between January 2017 and December 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: In the SVW group, blastocysts were vitrified on Day 5/6 and warmed on the day of embryo transfer (ET). In the DVW group, two pronuclear (2PN) zygotes were first vitrified-warmed and then re-vitrified on Day 5/6 and warmed on the day of ET. Exclusion criteria were ETs from PGT and vitrified-warmed oocyte cycles. All of the ETs were single blastocyst transfers performed at the University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland following natural or artificial endometrial preparation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and LBR were all comparable between the DVW and SVW groups. The CPR for DVW was 44.3% and for SVW it was 42.3% (P = 0.719). The LBR for DVW was 30.9% and for SVW it was 28.7% (P = 0.675). The miscarriage rate was additionally similar between the groups: 27.9% for DVW and 32.1% for SVW groups (P = 0.765). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is limited by its retrospective nature. Caution should be taken concerning interpretation of these findings in cases where DVW occurs at different stages of embryo development. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The result of the present study on DVW procedure provides a framework for counselling couples on their chance of clinical pregnancy per warming cycle. It additionally provides confidence and reassurance to laboratory professionals in certain countries where national policies limit embryo culture strategies making DVW inevitable. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the University Research Priority Program 'Human Reproduction Reloaded' of the University of Zurich. The authors have no conflict of interest related to this study to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Higher miscarriage rate in subfertile women with endometriosis receiving unbiopsied frozen-warmed single blastocyst transfers.

Background: Assisted reproductive technology treatment is recommended to overcome endometriosis-associated infertility but current evidence is controversial. Endometriosis is associated with lower antral follicle count (AFC) and oocyte yield but similar clinical outcomes compared to controls. Unaffected ovarian stimulation response and embryological outcomes but lower clinical pregnancy and live birth rates and higher miscarriage rates have been reported, implying direct impact on endometrial receptivity. With evidence emerging on the benefit of frozen-warmed and blastocyst stage transfer, we investigated ART outcomes in endometriosis using homogeneous case-control groups. Methods: This is a retrospective observational case-control study including n = 66 frozen-warmed unbiopsied single blastocyst transfers of patients with endometriosis and n = 96 of women exhibiting idiopathic sterility. All frozen-warmed transfers followed artificial endometrial preparation. Results: In control women, the mean number of oocytes recovered at oocyte pick up was higher compared to women with endometriosis (15.3 ± 7.1 vs. 12.7 ± 5.2, p = 0.025) but oocyte maturation index (mature oocytes/total oocytes at oocyte pick up) was significantly higher for endometriosis (48.2% vs. 34.0%, p = 0.005). The same was shown for the subgroup of 44 endometriosis patients after endometrioma surgery when compared with controls (49.1% vs. 34.0%, p = 0.014). Clinical pregnancy rate was not higher in endometriosis but was close to significance (47.0% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.059) while live birth rate was comparable (27.3% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.746). Miscarriage rate was higher in the endometriosis group (19.7% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.018). A significantly higher AFC was observed in the control group in comparison with the endometriosis group (16.3 ± 7.6 vs. 13.4 ± 7.0, p = 0.014). Live birth rate did not differ when comparing all endometriosis cases (p = 0.746), ASRM Stage I/II and Stage III/IV (p = 0.348 and p = 0.888) with the control group but the overall pregnancy rate was higher in ASRM Stage I/II (p = 0.034) and miscarriage rate was higher in ASRM Stage III/IV (p = 0.030) versus control. Conclusion: Blastocyst transfers in women with endometriosis originate from cycles with lower AFC but higher share of mature oocytes than in control women, suggesting that endometriosis might impair ovarian reserve but not stimulation response. A higher miscarriage rate, independent of blastocyst quality may be attributed to an impact of endometriosis on the endometrium beyond the timing of implantation.

Outcome and risk factors of cesarean delivery with and without cesarean myomectomy in women with uterine myomatas.

AIM: To evaluate the outcome of a cesarean myomectomy (CM) versus a cesarean delivery (CD) alone in women with uterine myomas and the risk factors for adverse outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all women undergoing CDs with uterine leiomyomatas and singleton pregnancies was performed. Patients with known risk factors for hemorrhage were excluded. Measured adverse outcome parameters included estimated blood loss, drop in hemoglobin levels (pre/postoperatively), operation time, and the use of additional uterotonics. Outcome parameters of women with CM were compared to women with CD alone. Possible risk factors for adverse outcomes were analyzed in a multivariate regression analysis. Evaluated risk factors for CM were according to localization and type of myomatas, the myoma size, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, age ≥40 years, fetal weight ≥4 kg, repeat CD, and unplanned CD in the first stage of labor. The influence of localization and myoma type were further analyzed in a subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Of the 162 women with uterine myomatas during CD, 48 underwent CM and were analyzed. Overall, CM was not associated with adverse outcomes. Independent of a concomitant myomectomy, a large myoma size of ≥5 cm was associated with an increased blood loss of ≥500 ml (adj. OR 2.7 CI 95 % 1.2-6.2, p = 0.02), and women ≥40 years of age had a significant postoperative drop in hemoglobin (adj. OR 2.4 CI 95 % 1.0-5.4, p = 0.04). In the univariate subgroup analysis, CM of multiple myomatas was associated with an increased blood loss and an increased operation time compared to women with multiple myomatas and CD alone. Prolonged operation times were also observed in women with pedunculated and subserosal myomatas with concomitant myomectomy. There were no cases of hysterectomy or blood transfusions. CONCLUSION: CM performed by an experienced obstetrician can be safe in selected patients who are without additional preexisting risk factors. Risk factors that are associated with increased blood loss in women with uterine leiomyomatas include a larger size of the leiomyoma (≥5 cm) and a maternal age of ≥40 years.

Simultaneous diagnosis and treatment of bilateral breast carcinoma and endometrial adenocarcinoma. Implications for screening.

The association of breast and endometrial carcinoma has been demonstrated by many studies. Most of the cases are related to the previous use of tamoxifen for the treatment of breast carcinoma. However, triple primary malignancies on the same individual are very rare. This is an unusual case regarding simultaneous diagnosis and treatment of bilateral breast carcinoma and endometrial adenocarcinoma. The clinical aspects and treatment of this unique case are presented.