Ultra-Fast Warming Procedure of Vitrified Blastocysts Results in Maintained Embryology and Clinical Outcomes.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Reproductive Sciences Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1007/s43032-024-01762-x
Jenna Lammers, Arnaud Reignier, Sophie Loubersac, Maxime Chaillot, Thomas Freour
{"title":"Ultra-Fast Warming Procedure of Vitrified Blastocysts Results in Maintained Embryology and Clinical Outcomes.","authors":"Jenna Lammers, Arnaud Reignier, Sophie Loubersac, Maxime Chaillot, Thomas Freour","doi":"10.1007/s43032-024-01762-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Vitrification has revolutionized embryo cryopreservation, but represents a significant workload in the IVF lab. We evaluated here an ultrafast blastocyst warming procedure in order to improve workflow while maintaining clinical outcome. We first evaluated the expression of main markers of lineage specification in a subset of blastocysts donated to research warmed with ultrafast protocol. We then performed a prospective pseudo-randomized pilot study comparing blastocyst survival, reexpansion and live birth rates between standard (3 steps, 15 min), and ultrafast warming protocol (1 step, 2 min). Finally, survival, reexpansion and live birth rates (LBR) obtained with ultrafast warming protocol were prospectively collected during 3 months and compared with previous indicators. Immunofluorescence experiments showed that staining and spatial organization of cell fate markers were conserved with ultrafast protocol. Survival, reexpansion and LBR were strictly comparable between standard (n = 47 cycles) and ultrafast (n = 39 cycles) groups in the pilot study (100 vs 100%, 80 vs 76% and 29.8 vs 30.7% in standard and simplified groups respectively). Survival, expansion and LBR obtained with the ultrafast warming protocol over the next 3-month period (321 cycles, 336 embryos) were comparable with those obtained with the standard protocol throughout the 6 months (547 FBT cycles, 578 embryos) preceding shifting protocol (97.6 and 29.6% vs 97.8 and 28.3% respectively, p > 0.05 for both). In conclusion, using an ultrafast blastocyst warming procedure results in similar embryology and clinical outcomes compared with standard protocol, but significantly shortens the technical procedure, ultimately improving the overall lab's workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":20920,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01762-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vitrification has revolutionized embryo cryopreservation, but represents a significant workload in the IVF lab. We evaluated here an ultrafast blastocyst warming procedure in order to improve workflow while maintaining clinical outcome. We first evaluated the expression of main markers of lineage specification in a subset of blastocysts donated to research warmed with ultrafast protocol. We then performed a prospective pseudo-randomized pilot study comparing blastocyst survival, reexpansion and live birth rates between standard (3 steps, 15 min), and ultrafast warming protocol (1 step, 2 min). Finally, survival, reexpansion and live birth rates (LBR) obtained with ultrafast warming protocol were prospectively collected during 3 months and compared with previous indicators. Immunofluorescence experiments showed that staining and spatial organization of cell fate markers were conserved with ultrafast protocol. Survival, reexpansion and LBR were strictly comparable between standard (n = 47 cycles) and ultrafast (n = 39 cycles) groups in the pilot study (100 vs 100%, 80 vs 76% and 29.8 vs 30.7% in standard and simplified groups respectively). Survival, expansion and LBR obtained with the ultrafast warming protocol over the next 3-month period (321 cycles, 336 embryos) were comparable with those obtained with the standard protocol throughout the 6 months (547 FBT cycles, 578 embryos) preceding shifting protocol (97.6 and 29.6% vs 97.8 and 28.3% respectively, p > 0.05 for both). In conclusion, using an ultrafast blastocyst warming procedure results in similar embryology and clinical outcomes compared with standard protocol, but significantly shortens the technical procedure, ultimately improving the overall lab's workflow.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reproductive Sciences
Reproductive Sciences 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.40%
发文量
322
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Reproductive Sciences (RS) is a peer-reviewed, monthly journal publishing original research and reviews in obstetrics and gynecology. RS is multi-disciplinary and includes research in basic reproductive biology and medicine, maternal-fetal medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, urogynecology, fertility/infertility, embryology, gynecologic/reproductive oncology, developmental biology, stem cell research, molecular/cellular biology and other related fields.
期刊最新文献
Fluoxetine Mitigates Human Sperm Quality by Disrupting the Antioxidant Defense System and Altering the Expression of Apoptosis-Related Genes: An In Vitro Study. Ultra-Fast Warming Procedure of Vitrified Blastocysts Results in Maintained Embryology and Clinical Outcomes. Matrix Metallopeptidase 9 Promotes Contraction in Human Uterine Myometrium. Only Children by Choice vs. Only Children by Circumstances: Why Do Some Women Have Only One Child? A Multimodal Approach to Symptomatic Endometriosis: A Proposed Algorithm for Clinical Management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1