Embryos from vitrified vs. fresh oocytes in an oocyte donation program: a comparative morphokinetic analysis

Abstract

Objective

To compare the morphokinetic patterns of human embryos originating from vitrified oocytes (VITRI group) with those derived from freshly collected oocytes (CONTROL group) in oocyte donation cycles.

Design

This is a retrospective observational study.

Setting

Embryolab Fertility Clinic, Embryology Lab, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Patient(s)

The study included embryos from 421 vitrified oocytes from 58 oocyte donation cycles and 196 fresh oocytes from 23 oocyte donation cycles.

Intervention(s)

None.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Key time parameters, dynamic events, fertilization rates, degeneration rates, cleavage rates, blastocyst rates, pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and live birth rates were estimated.

Results

The mean survival rate of vitrified oocytes was 92.58% (±7.42%). Fertilization rates were significantly different between the 2 groups (VITRI group: 71.92% ± 20.29% and CONTROL group: 80.65% ± 15.22%) whereas the degeneration, cleavage, blastocyst, pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, implantation, and live birth rates were not significantly different between embryos derived from fresh or vitrified oocytes. Time-lapse analysis showed no significant difference in any key time parameter. However, when examining dynamic parameters, first cell cycle (CC1) (t2 − tPB2: from the second polar body extrusion (tPB2) up to 2 cells (t2)) showed a significant difference whereas CC1a (t2 − tPNf: from fading of the pronuclei (tPNf) up to 2 cells (t2)) was at the threshold of significance.

Conclusion(s)

CC1 in vitrified oocytes exhibited a comparatively slower progression in contrast to fresh oocytes. Conversely, CC1a in vitrified oocytes demonstrated faster progression compared with fresh oocytes. It is worth noting that these temporary deviations had minimal impact on the subsequent development. Despite the clinical outcomes showing a decrease in the vitrified group, none of them reached statistical significance. This lack of significance could be attributed to the limited sample size of the study.