4.7 Article

Clinical outcome of oocyte cryopreservation after slow cooling with a protocol utilizing a high sucrose concentration

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 512-517

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei346

Keywords

cryopreservation; fertility preservation; oocytes; pregnancy rate; slow cooling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Recently, interest in oocyte cryopreservation has steadily increased. Newly developed protocols have dramatically improved survival rates, removing perhaps the major hurdle that has prevented this approach from becoming a fully established form of treatment. However, the clinical efficiency of these protocols has not been exhaustively explored and therefore remains controversial. METHODS: Morphologically normal oocytes displaying the first polar body were frozen-thawed with a slow cooling protocol that utilized 1.5 mol/l propane-1,2-diol (PrOH) and 0.3 mol/l sucrose. RESULTS: A total of 927 oocytes from 146 patients were frozen-thawed, achieving a 74.1% survival rate. Over 76% of microinjected oocytes displayed two pronuclei 16 h post-insemination, while the proportion of embryos at 44-46 h post-insemination was 90.2%. At this time point, the majority (68.3%) of embryos were at the two-cell stage, showing in most cases (78.7%) minimal or moderate fragmentation. Eighteen clinical pregnancies, three of which were twin, were observed, giving rise to rates of 12.3 and 9.7%, calculated per patient and per embryo transfer, respectively.The implantation rate was 5.2%. To date, four children have been born and three pregnancies resulted in spontaneous abortions, while the remaining pregnancies are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that although the combination of slow cooling and high sucrose concentration ensures high rates of oocyte survival, it is not sufficient to guarantee a high standard of clinical efficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available