胚胎长期储存不会影响 ART 的结果:对 11 年间 58001 个玻璃化囊胚的分析。

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.03.033
{"title":"胚胎长期储存不会影响 ART 的结果:对 11 年间 58001 个玻璃化囊胚的分析。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2024.03.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Recently, the potential detrimental effect that the duration of storage time may have on vitrified samples has raised some concerns, especially when some studies found an association between cryostorage length and decreased clinical results.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the storage time length of day-5 vitrified blastocysts in 2 study groups: freeze-all cycles and nonelective frozen embryo transfers.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>This was a retrospective study that included 58,001 vitrified/warmed day-5 blastocysts from 2 different populations, according to the reason for frozen embryo transfer. Elective frozen embryo transfer comprised freeze-all cycles (N=16,615 blastocysts and 16,615 patients) in which only single embryo transfers and only the first frozen embryo transfer were included. The nonelective frozen embryo transfer group included 41,386 embryos from 25,571 patients where frozen embryo transfer took place using supernumerary embryos after fresh embryo transfer. All the possible frozen embryo transfers were included. Both single embryo transfer and double embryo transfers were included. Donor and autologous oocytes were used. The period covered by this study was 11 years. The blastocyst sample was clustered into deciles, which provided specific storage duration categories. The main outcome was the live birth rate, and secondary outcomes were embryo survival, miscarriage, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates according to storage duration. The impact of storage time was assessed by univariable analyses in both groups. The comparison was made between each decile and the last one. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, including the variables with significant association found in the univariate analysis. Student <em>t</em> test and chi-square tests, or an analysis of variance, were used wherever appropriate. <em>P</em>&lt;.05 was considered statistically significant.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were statistical differences in baseline characteristics of patients included in the study groups. Storage durations ranged from ≤0.67 to ≥4.34 and from ≤1.8 to ≥34.81 months in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer, respectively. Embryo survival did not show statistical differences across the categories of storage time in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer groups. Statistical differences were found for the live birth rate across some, but not all, the subgroups of storage duration. The multivariable analysis showed no association between storage time and the live birth rate in both groups (nonsignificant). Blastocyst quality, body mass index, number of retrieved oocytes, endometrial preparation, male factor, and uterine factor were related to the drop in the live birth rate in the freeze-all group (<em>P</em>&lt;.05). In the nonelective frozen embryo transfer group, the variables that showed significant association with the live birth rate were age at retrieval and frozen embryo transfer, type of frozen embryo transfer (single embryo transfer or double embryo transfers), number of retrieved oocytes, body mass index, endometrial preparation, origin of sperm sample, and female factor.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This large study demonstrated no association between storage time and clinical outcome. Other variables, such as the patient’s age, embryo quality, body mass index, and etiology, are somewhat responsible for impacting the outcome. This provides evidence for the safety of embryo vitrification, even after long storage periods. This is reassuring for both in vitro fertilization practitioners and patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer of either elective or nonelective embryos.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Embryo long-term storage does not affect assisted reproductive technologies outcome: analysis of 58,001 vitrified blastocysts over 11 years\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajog.2024.03.033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Recently, the potential detrimental effect that the duration of storage time may have on vitrified samples has raised some concerns, especially when some studies found an association between cryostorage length and decreased clinical results.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the storage time length of day-5 vitrified blastocysts in 2 study groups: freeze-all cycles and nonelective frozen embryo transfers.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>This was a retrospective study that included 58,001 vitrified/warmed day-5 blastocysts from 2 different populations, according to the reason for frozen embryo transfer. Elective frozen embryo transfer comprised freeze-all cycles (N=16,615 blastocysts and 16,615 patients) in which only single embryo transfers and only the first frozen embryo transfer were included. The nonelective frozen embryo transfer group included 41,386 embryos from 25,571 patients where frozen embryo transfer took place using supernumerary embryos after fresh embryo transfer. All the possible frozen embryo transfers were included. Both single embryo transfer and double embryo transfers were included. Donor and autologous oocytes were used. The period covered by this study was 11 years. The blastocyst sample was clustered into deciles, which provided specific storage duration categories. The main outcome was the live birth rate, and secondary outcomes were embryo survival, miscarriage, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates according to storage duration. The impact of storage time was assessed by univariable analyses in both groups. The comparison was made between each decile and the last one. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, including the variables with significant association found in the univariate analysis. Student <em>t</em> test and chi-square tests, or an analysis of variance, were used wherever appropriate. <em>P</em>&lt;.05 was considered statistically significant.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were statistical differences in baseline characteristics of patients included in the study groups. Storage durations ranged from ≤0.67 to ≥4.34 and from ≤1.8 to ≥34.81 months in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer, respectively. Embryo survival did not show statistical differences across the categories of storage time in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer groups. Statistical differences were found for the live birth rate across some, but not all, the subgroups of storage duration. The multivariable analysis showed no association between storage time and the live birth rate in both groups (nonsignificant). Blastocyst quality, body mass index, number of retrieved oocytes, endometrial preparation, male factor, and uterine factor were related to the drop in the live birth rate in the freeze-all group (<em>P</em>&lt;.05). In the nonelective frozen embryo transfer group, the variables that showed significant association with the live birth rate were age at retrieval and frozen embryo transfer, type of frozen embryo transfer (single embryo transfer or double embryo transfers), number of retrieved oocytes, body mass index, endometrial preparation, origin of sperm sample, and female factor.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This large study demonstrated no association between storage time and clinical outcome. Other variables, such as the patient’s age, embryo quality, body mass index, and etiology, are somewhat responsible for impacting the outcome. This provides evidence for the safety of embryo vitrification, even after long storage periods. This is reassuring for both in vitro fertilization practitioners and patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer of either elective or nonelective embryos.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937824004691\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937824004691","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最近,储存时间的长短对玻璃化样本可能产生的不利影响引起了一些人的关注,尤其是一些研究发现冷冻储存时间的长短与临床结果的下降之间存在关联:本研究旨在评估两个研究组中第 5 天玻璃化囊胚储存时间长度的影响:全部冷冻周期和非选择性冷冻胚胎移植(FET):这是一项回顾性研究,根据冷冻胚胎移植的原因,研究对象包括来自两个不同人群的 58001 个玻璃化/温育的第 5 天囊胚。选择性 FET 包括所有冷冻周期(N=16615 个囊胚和 16615 名患者),其中仅包括单胚胎移植(SET)和首次 FET。非选择性 FET 组包括 25571 名患者的 41386 个胚胎,这些患者在新鲜胚胎移植后使用编外胚胎进行了 FET。所有可能的 FET 都包括在内。SET和双胚胎移植(DET)均包括在内。使用了供体和自体卵母细胞。这项研究的时间跨度为 11 年。囊胚样本被分为十等分,提供了特定的储存时间类别。主要结果是活产率(LBR),次要结果是胚胎存活率、流产率、临床妊娠率和持续妊娠率(根据储存时间长短而定)。通过单变量分析评估了储存时间对两组的影响。在每个十分位数与最后一个十分位数之间进行比较。进行了多变量逻辑回归分析,包括单变量分析中发现的具有显著相关性的变量。在适当的情况下采用学生 t 检验、卡方检验或方差分析。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义:研究组患者的基线特征存在统计学差异。冻存和非选择性 FET 的储存时间分别为≤ 0.67 至≥ 4.34 个月和≤ 1.8 至≥ 34.81 个月。胚胎存活率在所有冷冻组和非选择性 FET 组的不同储存时间类别中未显示出统计学差异。LBR在某些(但不是所有)储存时间分组中存在统计学差异。多变量分析表明,在两组中,储存时间与 LBR 之间没有关联(NS)。囊胚质量、体重指数(BMI)、取回的卵母细胞数量、子宫内膜制备、男性因素和子宫因素与全部冷冻组的 LBR 下降有关(p<0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Embryo long-term storage does not affect assisted reproductive technologies outcome: analysis of 58,001 vitrified blastocysts over 11 years

Background

Recently, the potential detrimental effect that the duration of storage time may have on vitrified samples has raised some concerns, especially when some studies found an association between cryostorage length and decreased clinical results.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the storage time length of day-5 vitrified blastocysts in 2 study groups: freeze-all cycles and nonelective frozen embryo transfers.

Study Design

This was a retrospective study that included 58,001 vitrified/warmed day-5 blastocysts from 2 different populations, according to the reason for frozen embryo transfer. Elective frozen embryo transfer comprised freeze-all cycles (N=16,615 blastocysts and 16,615 patients) in which only single embryo transfers and only the first frozen embryo transfer were included. The nonelective frozen embryo transfer group included 41,386 embryos from 25,571 patients where frozen embryo transfer took place using supernumerary embryos after fresh embryo transfer. All the possible frozen embryo transfers were included. Both single embryo transfer and double embryo transfers were included. Donor and autologous oocytes were used. The period covered by this study was 11 years. The blastocyst sample was clustered into deciles, which provided specific storage duration categories. The main outcome was the live birth rate, and secondary outcomes were embryo survival, miscarriage, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates according to storage duration. The impact of storage time was assessed by univariable analyses in both groups. The comparison was made between each decile and the last one. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, including the variables with significant association found in the univariate analysis. Student t test and chi-square tests, or an analysis of variance, were used wherever appropriate. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

There were statistical differences in baseline characteristics of patients included in the study groups. Storage durations ranged from ≤0.67 to ≥4.34 and from ≤1.8 to ≥34.81 months in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer, respectively. Embryo survival did not show statistical differences across the categories of storage time in freeze-all and nonelective frozen embryo transfer groups. Statistical differences were found for the live birth rate across some, but not all, the subgroups of storage duration. The multivariable analysis showed no association between storage time and the live birth rate in both groups (nonsignificant). Blastocyst quality, body mass index, number of retrieved oocytes, endometrial preparation, male factor, and uterine factor were related to the drop in the live birth rate in the freeze-all group (P<.05). In the nonelective frozen embryo transfer group, the variables that showed significant association with the live birth rate were age at retrieval and frozen embryo transfer, type of frozen embryo transfer (single embryo transfer or double embryo transfers), number of retrieved oocytes, body mass index, endometrial preparation, origin of sperm sample, and female factor.

Conclusion

This large study demonstrated no association between storage time and clinical outcome. Other variables, such as the patient’s age, embryo quality, body mass index, and etiology, are somewhat responsible for impacting the outcome. This provides evidence for the safety of embryo vitrification, even after long storage periods. This is reassuring for both in vitro fertilization practitioners and patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer of either elective or nonelective embryos.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
2237
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare. Focus Areas: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders. Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases. Content Types: Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles. Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology. Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field. Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews. Peer Review Process: All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
期刊最新文献
Cerebral infarcts, edema, hypoperfusion and vasospasm in preeclampsia and eclampsia. Detection of endometrial cancer-related bleeding in virtual visits. Prevalence and risk factors for postpartum depression two months after cesarean delivery: a prospective multicenter study. Association between infertility and cervical insufficiency in nulliparous women- the contribution of fertility treatment. Delayed cord clamping in preterm twin infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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