胚胎双重玻璃化会对临床结果产生不利影响。

IF 1.8 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI:10.5935/1518-0557.20240014
Chara Oraiopoulou, Mary Karagianni, Achilleas Papatheodorou, Olga Toumpa, Marianna Papadopoulou, Nicholaos Christophoridis, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Alexia Chatziparasidou
{"title":"胚胎双重玻璃化会对临床结果产生不利影响。","authors":"Chara Oraiopoulou, Mary Karagianni, Achilleas Papatheodorou, Olga Toumpa, Marianna Papadopoulou, Nicholaos Christophoridis, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Alexia Chatziparasidou","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20240014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of double embryo vitrification on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included data from January 2013 to March 2021. The study group included women aged 33.3±5.7 years with double-vitrified embryos (n=381), while the control group included women aged 32.1±6.7 years with embryos vitrified once (n=780), all transferred at the blastocyst stage. The primary endpoint was live birth rate (LBR), and secondary endpoints included percent positive βHCG test, clinical/ongoing pregnancy rates, miscarriage/biochemical pregnancy rates and birthweight.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LBR was significantly lower in double-vitrified embryos (30.2%) than in embryos vitrified once (45.6%, p<.05). Similarly, double-vitrified embryos were associated with significantly lower positive βHCG tests (46% vs. 63.3%, p<.05) and clinical (34.9% vs. 52.2%, p<.05) and ongoing pregnancy (31.3% vs. 47.3%, p<.05) rates compared to embryos vitrified once. However, biochemical pregnancy (double vitrified: 24.1% vs. vitrified once: 17.9%, p>.05) and miscarriage rates (double vitrified: 10.2% vs. vitrified once: 9.4%, p>.05), as well as mean birthweight (double-vitrified embryos: 2950g vs. embryos vitrified once: 2837g, p>.05) did not differ significantly between two groups. On a secondary comparison, amongst double-vitrified embryos, the subgroup that was cultured for more than 24 hours between warming and second vitrification achieved significantly higher positive βHCG tests (49%) and clinical pregnancy (38%) rates, compared to embryos re-vitrified on the same day of warming (31.8% and 20.5%, respectively, p<.05). Nevertheless, LBR did not differ significantly amongst these study-group embryos (embryos that remained in culture for more than 24 hours: 32.2% vs. embryos that were re-vitrified on warming day: 20.5%, p>.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes. However, it represents a valuable option concerning embryo wastage, with acceptable success rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":46364,"journal":{"name":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","volume":" ","pages":"399-404"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Chara Oraiopoulou, Mary Karagianni, Achilleas Papatheodorou, Olga Toumpa, Marianna Papadopoulou, Nicholaos Christophoridis, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Alexia Chatziparasidou\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/1518-0557.20240014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of double embryo vitrification on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included data from January 2013 to March 2021. The study group included women aged 33.3±5.7 years with double-vitrified embryos (n=381), while the control group included women aged 32.1±6.7 years with embryos vitrified once (n=780), all transferred at the blastocyst stage. The primary endpoint was live birth rate (LBR), and secondary endpoints included percent positive βHCG test, clinical/ongoing pregnancy rates, miscarriage/biochemical pregnancy rates and birthweight.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LBR was significantly lower in double-vitrified embryos (30.2%) than in embryos vitrified once (45.6%, p<.05). Similarly, double-vitrified embryos were associated with significantly lower positive βHCG tests (46% vs. 63.3%, p<.05) and clinical (34.9% vs. 52.2%, p<.05) and ongoing pregnancy (31.3% vs. 47.3%, p<.05) rates compared to embryos vitrified once. However, biochemical pregnancy (double vitrified: 24.1% vs. vitrified once: 17.9%, p>.05) and miscarriage rates (double vitrified: 10.2% vs. vitrified once: 9.4%, p>.05), as well as mean birthweight (double-vitrified embryos: 2950g vs. embryos vitrified once: 2837g, p>.05) did not differ significantly between two groups. On a secondary comparison, amongst double-vitrified embryos, the subgroup that was cultured for more than 24 hours between warming and second vitrification achieved significantly higher positive βHCG tests (49%) and clinical pregnancy (38%) rates, compared to embryos re-vitrified on the same day of warming (31.8% and 20.5%, respectively, p<.05). Nevertheless, LBR did not differ significantly amongst these study-group embryos (embryos that remained in culture for more than 24 hours: 32.2% vs. embryos that were re-vitrified on warming day: 20.5%, p>.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes. However, it represents a valuable option concerning embryo wastage, with acceptable success rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"399-404\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349271/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20240014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20240014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估双胚胎玻璃化对临床结果的影响:评估双胚胎玻璃化对临床结果的影响:这项回顾性队列研究包括2013年1月至2021年3月的数据。研究组包括年龄为 33.3±5.7 岁、胚胎经过两次玻璃化处理的女性(381 人),对照组包括年龄为 32.1±6.7 岁、胚胎经过一次玻璃化处理的女性(780 人),所有胚胎均在囊胚期移植。主要终点是活产率(LBR),次要终点包括βHCG检测阳性率、临床/持续妊娠率、流产/生化妊娠率和出生体重:双重玻璃化胚胎的LBR(30.2%)明显低于一次性玻璃化胚胎(45.6%,P.05),流产率(双重玻璃化:10.2% vs. 一次性玻璃化:9.4%,P>.05)和平均出生体重(双重玻璃化胚胎:2950克 vs. 一次性玻璃化胚胎:2837克,P>.05)在两组间无明显差异。经二次比较,在两次玻璃化的胚胎中,在升温和第二次玻璃化之间培养超过24小时的亚组,βHCG检测阳性率(49%)和临床妊娠率(38%)明显高于在升温当天再次玻璃化的胚胎(分别为31.8%和20.5%,P.05):结论:胚胎双重玻璃化会对临床结果产生不利影响。结论:胚胎双重玻璃化会对临床结果产生不利影响,但它是解决胚胎浪费问题的一种有价值的选择,其成功率是可以接受的。
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
Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of double embryo vitrification on clinical outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included data from January 2013 to March 2021. The study group included women aged 33.3±5.7 years with double-vitrified embryos (n=381), while the control group included women aged 32.1±6.7 years with embryos vitrified once (n=780), all transferred at the blastocyst stage. The primary endpoint was live birth rate (LBR), and secondary endpoints included percent positive βHCG test, clinical/ongoing pregnancy rates, miscarriage/biochemical pregnancy rates and birthweight.

Results: LBR was significantly lower in double-vitrified embryos (30.2%) than in embryos vitrified once (45.6%, p<.05). Similarly, double-vitrified embryos were associated with significantly lower positive βHCG tests (46% vs. 63.3%, p<.05) and clinical (34.9% vs. 52.2%, p<.05) and ongoing pregnancy (31.3% vs. 47.3%, p<.05) rates compared to embryos vitrified once. However, biochemical pregnancy (double vitrified: 24.1% vs. vitrified once: 17.9%, p>.05) and miscarriage rates (double vitrified: 10.2% vs. vitrified once: 9.4%, p>.05), as well as mean birthweight (double-vitrified embryos: 2950g vs. embryos vitrified once: 2837g, p>.05) did not differ significantly between two groups. On a secondary comparison, amongst double-vitrified embryos, the subgroup that was cultured for more than 24 hours between warming and second vitrification achieved significantly higher positive βHCG tests (49%) and clinical pregnancy (38%) rates, compared to embryos re-vitrified on the same day of warming (31.8% and 20.5%, respectively, p<.05). Nevertheless, LBR did not differ significantly amongst these study-group embryos (embryos that remained in culture for more than 24 hours: 32.2% vs. embryos that were re-vitrified on warming day: 20.5%, p>.05).

Conclusions: Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes. However, it represents a valuable option concerning embryo wastage, with acceptable success rates.

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
3.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
期刊最新文献
Effects of dietary quercetin on retrieved mouse oocytes and in vitro fertilization outcomes. Increased antinuclear (anti-Sm) antibodies in infertile patients with peritoneal endometriosis. Microfluidic in compared with Zeta potential, MACS and swim up methods, resulted in improved chromatin integrity and high quality sperms. Quality of information on fertility clinic websites accredited by the Latin American Network of Assisted Reproduction. Deleterious Effects of Caffeine Consumption on Reproductive Functions of Female Wistar Rats.
×
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