Purpose To study the efficacy and efficiency of a “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos, based on subsequent steps with 1 and 0.5 M concentration of extracellular cryoprotectant (ECCP). Method Two studies on patients undergoing fertility treatments via ICSI: a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective cohort study (CS). Setting: Private assisted reproductive (AR) center. RCT: duration 01/03/2017–01/10/2017; 315 embryos at blastocyst stage obtained from 169 patients. Each patient’s embryos were first randomized for vitrification with two different kits: Vitrification Kit (Kitazato, Japan) and Sage Vitrification Kit (Origio, Denmark). The embryos were randomly warmed with either Kitazato (K) or Sage (S) warming kits, specifically: group A (KK), group B (KS), group C (SK), and group D (SS). Primary outcome measure: survival rate (number of embryos surviving per number of embryos warmed). Secondary: implantation rate (number of embryos implanted per number of embryos transferred). CS: duration 01/01/2013–31/12/2015 embryos from patients’ own oocytes; 10/04/2015–31/07/2017 embryos from donors’ oocytes. A total of 1055 embryos vitrified at cleavage stage obtained from 631 warming cycles: 847 of these obtained from patients’ own oocytes, 208 egg-donation-derived embryos. Each patient’s embryos were vitrified and warmed in various combinations of three different vitrification/warming kits: Kitazato (K), Sage (S), or made in-house in our laboratory (H). Vitrification/warming kits from different manufacturers are routinely used in our AR center, and the warming procedures are randomly performed with any available kit on a “first-in-first-out” basis, irrespective of the kit used for vitrification. Group names: KK, KS, SK, SS, SH, HK, HS, HH (embryos from patients’ own oocytes); eKK, eKS, eSK, eSS (egg-donation-derived embryos). Results Cryo-survival rates were comparable in all study groups. RCT. Group A 99.0% (96/97), group B 98.8% (83/84), group C 98.4% (61/62), and group D 98.6% (71/72). CS. Embryos from patients’ own oocytes: KK 96.4% (54/56), KS 100.0% (13/13), SK 98.8% (80/81), SS 97.2% (174/179), SH 97.6% (40/41), HK 95.2% (20/21), HS 99.5% (187/188), and HH 97.4% (261/268). Egg-donation-derived embryos: eKK 100.0% (91/91), eKS 98.4% (60/61), eSK 100.0% (26/26), and eSS 96.7 (29/30). Implantation was generally comparable in all study groups—exceptions were in CS: KS vs. SK (P = 0.049), SS (P = 0.012), HS (P = 0.010), HH (P = 0.025); and SH vs. SS (P = 0.042), HS (P = 0.035). Conclusion Worldwide, millions of embryos have been cryopreserved using different vitrification kits; these studies establish that it is possible to combine different kits for vitrification and warming using a universal warming protocol. This can optimize costs, simplify lab routines, and favor embryo exchange between IVF centers.

Parmegiani, L., Beilby, K.H., Arnone, A., Bernardi, S., Maccarini, A.M., Nardi, E., et al. (2018). Testing the efficacy and efficiency of a single “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos: prospective randomized controlled trial and retrospective longitudinal cohort study. JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 35, 1887-1895 [10.1007/s10815-018-1276-4].

Testing the efficacy and efficiency of a single “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos: prospective randomized controlled trial and retrospective longitudinal cohort study

MACCARINI, ANDREA MARIA;Nardi, E.;Filicori, M.
2018

Abstract

Purpose To study the efficacy and efficiency of a “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos, based on subsequent steps with 1 and 0.5 M concentration of extracellular cryoprotectant (ECCP). Method Two studies on patients undergoing fertility treatments via ICSI: a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective cohort study (CS). Setting: Private assisted reproductive (AR) center. RCT: duration 01/03/2017–01/10/2017; 315 embryos at blastocyst stage obtained from 169 patients. Each patient’s embryos were first randomized for vitrification with two different kits: Vitrification Kit (Kitazato, Japan) and Sage Vitrification Kit (Origio, Denmark). The embryos were randomly warmed with either Kitazato (K) or Sage (S) warming kits, specifically: group A (KK), group B (KS), group C (SK), and group D (SS). Primary outcome measure: survival rate (number of embryos surviving per number of embryos warmed). Secondary: implantation rate (number of embryos implanted per number of embryos transferred). CS: duration 01/01/2013–31/12/2015 embryos from patients’ own oocytes; 10/04/2015–31/07/2017 embryos from donors’ oocytes. A total of 1055 embryos vitrified at cleavage stage obtained from 631 warming cycles: 847 of these obtained from patients’ own oocytes, 208 egg-donation-derived embryos. Each patient’s embryos were vitrified and warmed in various combinations of three different vitrification/warming kits: Kitazato (K), Sage (S), or made in-house in our laboratory (H). Vitrification/warming kits from different manufacturers are routinely used in our AR center, and the warming procedures are randomly performed with any available kit on a “first-in-first-out” basis, irrespective of the kit used for vitrification. Group names: KK, KS, SK, SS, SH, HK, HS, HH (embryos from patients’ own oocytes); eKK, eKS, eSK, eSS (egg-donation-derived embryos). Results Cryo-survival rates were comparable in all study groups. RCT. Group A 99.0% (96/97), group B 98.8% (83/84), group C 98.4% (61/62), and group D 98.6% (71/72). CS. Embryos from patients’ own oocytes: KK 96.4% (54/56), KS 100.0% (13/13), SK 98.8% (80/81), SS 97.2% (174/179), SH 97.6% (40/41), HK 95.2% (20/21), HS 99.5% (187/188), and HH 97.4% (261/268). Egg-donation-derived embryos: eKK 100.0% (91/91), eKS 98.4% (60/61), eSK 100.0% (26/26), and eSS 96.7 (29/30). Implantation was generally comparable in all study groups—exceptions were in CS: KS vs. SK (P = 0.049), SS (P = 0.012), HS (P = 0.010), HH (P = 0.025); and SH vs. SS (P = 0.042), HS (P = 0.035). Conclusion Worldwide, millions of embryos have been cryopreserved using different vitrification kits; these studies establish that it is possible to combine different kits for vitrification and warming using a universal warming protocol. This can optimize costs, simplify lab routines, and favor embryo exchange between IVF centers.
2018
Parmegiani, L., Beilby, K.H., Arnone, A., Bernardi, S., Maccarini, A.M., Nardi, E., et al. (2018). Testing the efficacy and efficiency of a single “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos: prospective randomized controlled trial and retrospective longitudinal cohort study. JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 35, 1887-1895 [10.1007/s10815-018-1276-4].
Parmegiani, L.; Beilby, K. H.; Arnone, A.; Bernardi, S.; Maccarini, A. M.; Nardi, E.; Cognigni, G. E.; Filicori, M.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Parmegiani2018_Article_TestingTheEfficacyAndEfficienc.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 579.68 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
579.68 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/640423
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 21
social impact