Open versus closed oocyte vitrification in an oocyte donation programme: a prospective randomized sibling oocyte study

High-security closed devices are efficient and safe to protect human oocytes from potential risk of viral contamination during vitrification and storage especially in the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

The main purpose and research question of the study are to compare the efficacy of high-security closed versus open devices for human oocytes' vitrification.

METHODS

A prospective randomized study was conducted. A total of 737 patients attending the Infertility and IVF Unit at S.Orsola University Hospital (Italy) between October 2015 and April 2020 were randomly assigned to two groups. A total of 368 patients were assigned to group 1 (High-Security Vitrification™ - HSV) and 369 to group 2 (Cryotop® open system). Oocyte survival, fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy, implantation, and miscarriage rate were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed on survival rate (70.3% vs. 73.3%), fertilization rate (70.8% vs. 74.9%), cleavage rate (90.6% vs. 90.3%), pregnancy/transfer ratio (32.0% vs. 31.8%), implantation rate (19.7% vs. 19.9%), nor miscarriage rates (22.1% vs. 21.5%) between the two groups. Women's mean age in group 1 (36.18 ± 3.92) and group 2 (35.88 ± 3.88) was not significantly different (P = .297). A total of 4029 oocytes were vitrified (1980 and 2049 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 2564 were warmed (1469 and 1095 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 1386 morphologically eligible oocytes were inseminated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (792 and 594 respectively, P = .304).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that the replacement of the open vitrification system by a closed one has no impact on in vitro and in vivo survival, development, pregnancy and implantation rate. Furthermore, to ensure safety, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of the closed device eliminates the potential samples' contamination during vitrification and storage.

Human sperm vitrification: the state of the art

Sperm cryopreservation has been widely used in assisted reproductive technology (ART) and has resulted in millions of live births. Two principal approaches have been adopted: conventional (slow) freezing and vitrification. As a traditional technique, slow freezing has been successfully employed and widely used at ART clinics whereas the latter, a process to solidify liquid into an amorphous or glassy state, may become a faster alternative method of sperm cryopreservation with significant benefits in regard to simple equipment and applicability to fertility centers. Sperm vitrification has its own limitations. Firstly, small volume of load is usually plunged to liquid nitrogen to achieve high cooling rate, which makes large volume sample cryopreservation less feasible. Secondly, direct contact with liquid nitrogen increases the potential risk of contamination. Recently, new carriers have been developed to facilitate improved control over the volume and speed, and new strategies have been implemented to minimize the contamination risk. In summary, although sperm vitrification has not yet been applied in routine sperm cryopreservation, its potential as a standard procedure is growing.

Open versus closed vitrification system of human oocytes and embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis of embryologic and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of embryologic and clinical outcomes following open versus closed vitrification of human oocytes and embryos.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted in main electronic databases up to June 30, 2018 using the following key terms: 'oocyte', 'embryo', 'blastocyst', 'vitrification', 'cryopreservation', 'device', 'survival rate', 'pregnancy rate', etc. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effect model to estimate the value of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were carried out to further confirm the results.

RESULTS

Twelve (Eight prospective and four retrospective) studies comparing open versus closed vitrification of human oocytes or embryos were included. For prospective studies on oocytes, no evidence for a significant difference in cryosurvival rate (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80-1.03, P = 0.14; n = 2048) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.80-2.06, P = 0.30; n = 150) was observed. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the two methods concerning secondary endpoints included positive βHCG rate, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, cancellation rate, babies born per transferred blastocysts, or multiple birth rate (P > 0.05). The results of the retrospective studies were similar as the prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

It is still impossible to conclude that closed vitrification system could be a substitution for open system in human oocyte and embryo cryopreservation based on current evidence. Therefore, more well-designed prospective studies addressing these issues are still warranted.

Survival Rates in Closed and Open Vitrification for Human Mature Oocyte Cryopreservation: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Survival of warmed oocytes is the first part and is one of the most important aspects of in vitro fertilization following oocyte cryopreservation. There is no definite conclusion about the difference in survival rates between closed and open vitrification for oocyte cryopreservation. This study aimed to investigate whether there is a difference in survival rates between closed and open vitrification for cryopreservation of human mature oocytes.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases. A total of 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In the frequentist meta-analysis, the random effects model showed no statistically significant difference in survival rates between closed and open vitrification (risk ratio [RR] 0.8873, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7658-1.0280). However, an effect size deviation of the RR from 1.0 and a borderline trend of the 95% CI were noted. In the Bayesian meta-analysis, the posterior probability that closed vitrification would decrease the survival rate when compared to that with open vitrification was 83.04% for the random effects model.

CONCLUSION

It is not yet possible to conclude that closed vitrification is an aseptic alternative to open vitrification in human mature oocyte cryopreservation.

Vitrification of human immature oocytes before and after in vitro maturation: a review

The use of immature oocytes subjected to in vitro maturation (IVM) opens interesting perspectives for fertility preservation where ovarian reserves are damaged by pathologies or therapies, as in PCO/PCOS and cancer patients. Human oocyte cryopreservation may offer some advantages compared to embryo freezing, such as fertility preservation in women at risk of losing fertility due to oncological treatment or chronic disease, egg donation and postponing childbirth. It also eliminates religious and/or other ethical, legal, and moral concerns of embryo freezing. In addition, a successful oocyte cryopreservation program could eliminate the need for donor and recipient menstrual cycle synchronization. Recent advances in vitrification technology have markedly improved the oocyte survival rate after warming, with fertilization and implantation rates comparable with those of fresh oocytes. Healthy live births can be achieved from the combination of IVM and vitrification, even if vitrification of in vivo matured oocytes is still more effective. Recently, attention is given to highlight whether vitrification procedures are more successful when performed before or after IVM, on immature GV-stage oocytes, or on in vitro matured MII-stage oocytes. In this review, we emphasize that, even if there are no differences in survival rates between oocytes vitrified prior to or post-IVM, reduced maturation rates of immature oocytes vitrified prior to IVM can be, at least in part, explained by underlying ultrastructural and biomolecular alterations.

Risk of Contamination of Gametes and Embryos during Cryopreservation and Measures to Prevent Cross-Contamination

The introduction and widespread application of vitrification are one of the most important achievements in human assisted reproduction techniques (ART) of the past decade despite controversy and unclarified issues, mostly related to concerns about disease transmission. Guidance documents published by US Food and Drug Administration, which focused on the safety of tissue/organ donations during Zika virus spread in 2016, as well as some reports of virus, bacteria, and fungi survival to cryogenic temperatures, highlighted the need for a review of the way how potentially infectious material is handled and stored in ART-related procedures. It was experimentally demonstrated that cross-contamination between liquid nitrogen (LN₂) and embryos may occur when infectious agents are present in LN₂ and oocytes/embryos are not protected by a hermetically sealed device. Thus, this review summarizes pertinent data and opinions regarding the potential hazard of infectious transmission through cryopreserved and banked reproductive cells and tissues in LN₂. Special attention is given to the survival of pathogens in LN₂, the risk of cross-contamination, vitrification methods, sterility of LN₂, and the risks associated with the use of straws, cryovials, and storage dewars.

Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance

BACKGROUND

Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method.

SEARCH METHODS

A Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI.

OUTCOMES

One RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05-7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71-4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies. Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00-3.59; P = 0.051; three RCTs; I2 = 71.9%). LBR per cycle was reported by one RCT performed with cleavage-stage embryos and was higher for vitrification (RR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.17-4.44; P =  0.016; 216 cycles; one RCT). A secondary analysis was performed focusing on embryo cryosurvival rate. Pooled data from seven RCTs (3615 embryos) revealed a significant improvement in embryo cryosurvival following vitrification as compared with slow-freezing (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30-1.93; P < 0.001; I2 = 93%).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Data from available RCTs suggest that vitrification/warming is superior to slow-freezing/thawing with regard to clinical outcomes (low quality of the evidence) and cryosurvival rates (moderate quality of the evidence) for oocytes, cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. The results were confirmed by cohort studies. The improvements obtained with the introduction of vitrification have several important clinical implications in ART. Based on this evidence, in particular regarding cryosurvival rates, laboratories that continue to use slow-freezing should consider transitioning to the use of vitrification for cryopreservation.

Long Cut Straw Provides Stable the Rates of Survival, Pregnancy and Live Birth for Vitrification of Human Blasotcysts

Most of the commercial devices for vitrification are directly immersed into the warming solution (WS) for increasing of warming rate. However, the previous modified cut standard straw (MCS) which has reported is difficult to immerse into the WS. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the long cut straw (LCS) could be useful as a stable tool for vitrified-warmed human blastocysts. A total of 138 vitrified-warmed cycles were performed between November 2013 and November 2014 (exclusion criteria: women ≥38 years old, poor responder, surgical retrieval sperm, and severe male factor). The artificial shrinkage was conducted using 29-gauge needles. Ethylene glycol and dimethyl sulfoxide (7.5% and 15% (v/v)) were used as cryoprotectants. Freezing and warming were conducted using the LCS tool. The cap of LCS was removed using the forceps in the liquid nitrogen (LN₂) and then directly immersed into the first WS for 1 min at 37℃ (1 M sucrose). Only re-expanded blastocysts were transferred after it was cultured in sequential media for 18-20 h. A total of 294 blastocysts were warmed, and all were recovered (100%). Two hundred eighty-five embryos were survived (96.9%). The vitrifiedwarmed blastocysts of all patients were transferred without any cancellation. We were able to achieve a reasonable implantation (24.2%), following by clinical pregnancy (36.2%), which then continued to ongoing pregnancy (36.2%), and live birth (31.2%). Using LCS is achieved the acceptable rates of survival, pregnancy and live birth. Therefore, the LCS could be considered as a stable and simple tool for human embryo vitrificaton.