What is the net effect of introducing vitrification for cryopreservation of surplus 2PN oocytes in an IVF program?

Nomogram to predict FSH starting dose in poor ovarian response women in progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol

Prediction of individual ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropin is a cornerstone for success and safety in all controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols. Providing the best FSH starting dose according to each woman's own characteristics is the key to the success of individualized treatment. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the potential application of a novel nomogram based on antral follicle counting (AFC), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and body mass index (BMI) as a tool to optimize the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose in women with poor ovarian response in in-vitro fertilization (IVF)/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS). We performed a retrospective analysis involving 130 poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles in a PPOS protocol from June 2017 to February 2019 in our reproductive center. The individual FSH starting dose was selected according to patients' clinical history and characteristics. The influence of variables including age, BMI, AMH and AFC on the FSH starting dose was assessed through multiple regression analysis. We used the variables reaching the statistical significance for calculation for the final predictive model. In the univariate analysis, BMI, AMH and AFC were significant (P < 0.05) predictors of FSH starting dose, age was canceled. In the multivariate analysis, BMI, AMH and AFC remained significant (P < 0.05). According to the nomogram, 118 patients (90.77% of 130) would have received a higher FSH starting dose and 12 patients (9.23% of 130) a lower FSH starting dose than practice dose. The application of the nomogram based on three variables easily determined in clinical practice: BMI, AMH and AFC would lead to a more tailored FSH starting dose in women with poor ovarian response.

The impact of zygote vitrification timing on pregnancy rate in frozen-thawed IVF/ICSI cycles

Introduction: Cryopreservation of bipronuclear (2PN) stage zygotes is an integral part of IVF laboratory practice in countries with strict embryo culture legislation. Vitrification of zygotes is compatible with several strategies in infertility treatments holding a freeze-all indication and allows for effective workload management in settings with limited resources. Although it yields high survival rates and clinical outcomes, the ideal timing to commence vitrification of zygotes is elusive while it is empirically practiced in the window between 17 and 21 h post-insemination (hpi). We aimed to deduce the association between pregnancy rate and the time interval from insemination (IVF and ICSI) to vitrification to contribute to the standardization ofzygote cryopreservation. Methods: A retrospective analysis of data on vitrification timings and pregnancy outcomes collected between 2011 and 2019 was performed. All included women received an embryo transfer after warming of vitrified zygotes at the 2PN stage. Results: A total of 468 embryo transfers were included of which 182 (38.9%) resulted in pregnancy and 286 (61.1%) not. Vitrification was on average performed 18.74 ±0.63 hpi in the pregnant group and 18.62 ± 0.64 hpi in the non-pregnant group (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01; 1.83, p = 0.045). A multivariate analysis controlling for uterine pathologies, maternal age, AMH, the number of MII oocytes, previous history of pregnancy success, endometriosis, AFC, nicotine intake and male factor infertility showed no predictive value of vitrification timing on pregnancy rate. Three time intervals between insemination and vitrification were defined: 17:00 to 18:00 hpi (Group A), 18:01 to 19:00 hpi (Group B) and 19:01 to 21:00 hpi (Group C). Pregnancy occurred in 40/130 women (30.80%) in Group A, in 115/281 women (40.90%) in Group B and in 27/57 women (47.40%) in Group C. Univariate but not multivariate analysis showed a significantly higher pregnancy rate after the latest time interval between insemination and 2PN vitrification when compared to the earliest (Group C vs. A, OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.07; 3.84, p = 0.031). Discussion: These findings encourage further investigation on the impact of vitrification timing on clinical outcomes and hold the potential to standardize cryopreservation of zygotes from IVF/ICSI cycles to eventually improve the quality of long-term ART outcomes.

A randomised, multi-center, open trial comparing a semi-automated closed vitrification system with a manual open system in women undergoing IVF

STUDY QUESTION

What are outcome and procedural differences when using the semi-automated closed Gavi® device versus the manual open Cryotop® method for vitrification of pronuclear (2PN) stage oocytes within an IVF program?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A semi-automated closed vitrification method gives similar clinical results as compared to an exclusively manual, open system but higher procedure duration and less staff convenience.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A semi-automated closed vitrification device has been introduced to the market, however, little evaluation of its performance in a clinical setting has been conducted so far.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This prospective, randomised, open non-inferiority trial was conducted at three German IVF centers (10/2017-12/2018). Randomization was performed on day of fertilization check, stratified by center and by indication for vitrification (surplus 2PN oocytes in the context of a fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycle or 'freeze-all' of 2PN oocytes).

PARTICIPANT/MATERIAL, SETTING, METHODS

The study population included subfertile women, aged 18-40 years, undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment after ovarian stimulation, with 2PN oocytes available for vitrification. The primary outcome was survival rate of 2PN oocytes at first warming procedure in a subsequent cycle and non-inferiority of 2PN survival was to be declared if the lower bound 95% CI of the mean difference in survival rate excluded a difference larger than 9.5%; secondary, descriptive outcomes included embryo development, pregnancy and live birth rate, procedure time and staff convenience.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The randomised patient population consisted of 149 patients, and the per-protocol population (patients with warming of 2PN oocytes for culture and planned ET) was 118 patients. The survival rate was 94.0% (±13.5) and 96.7% (±9.7) in the Gavi® and the Cryotop® group (weighted mean difference -1.6%, 95% CI -4.7 to 1.4, P = 0.28), respectively, indicating non-inferiority of the Gavi® vitrification/warming method for the primary outcome. Embryo development and the proportion of top-quality embryos was similar in the two groups, as were the pregnancy and live birth rate. Mean total procedure duration (vitrification and warming) was higher in the Gavi® group (81 ± 39 min vs 47 ± 15 min, mean difference 34 min, 95% CI 19 to 48). Staff convenience assessed by eight operators in a questionnaire was lower for the Gavi® system. The majority of respondents preferred the Cryotop® method because of practicality issues.

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

The study was performed in centers with long experience of manual vitrification, and the relative performance of the Gavi® system as well as the staff convenience may be higher in settings with less experience in the manual procedure. Financial costs of the two procedures were not measured along the trial.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

With increasing requirements for standardization of procedures and tissue safety, a semi-automated closed vitrification method may constitute a suitable alternative technology to the established manual open vitrification method given the equivalent clinical outcomes demonstrated herein.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The trial received no direct financial funding. The Gavi® instrument, Gavi® consumables and staff training were provided for free by the distributor (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) during the study period. The manufacturer of the Gavi® instrument had no influence on study protocol, study conduct, data analysis, data interpretation or manuscript writing. J.H. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Ferring, Merck and Origio. G.G. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Abbott, Ferring, Finox, Gedeon Richter, Guerbet, Merck, MSD, ObsEva, PregLem, ReprodWissen GmbH and Theramex. The remaining authors have no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03287479.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

19 September 2017.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

10 October 2017.