封閉式與開放式冷凍懷孕率類似

封閉式冷凍儲存載具與開放式冷凍儲存載具達到類似之懷孕率 (45.9% versus 42.4%)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23507132

Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 May;26(5):470-6. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.01.016. Epub 2013 Feb 9.

Open versus closed vitrification of blastocysts from an oocyte-donation programme: a prospective randomized study.

Panagiotidis Y, Vanderzwalmen P, Prapas Y, Kasapi E, Goudakou M, Papatheodorou A, Passadaki T, Petousis S, Nikolettos N,Veletza S, Prapas N, Maroulis G.

Source

Iakentro Advanced Medical Centre, IVF Unit, Thessaloniki, Greece. panagy@iakentro.gr

Abstract

The use of open carriers for embryo vitrification has raised safety concerns and therefore vitrification in closed systems has been proposed. However, the drop in the cooling rate emerges as a major drawback. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficiency of vitrification in open versus closed conditions. Blastocysts were randomly allocated either to open ultra-rapid vitrification (group I) or closed aseptic vitrification (group II). In group I, blastocysts were exposed to two solutions of ethylene glycol/dimethylsulphoxide (10%/10% and 20%/20%), while in group II, blastocysts were pretreated with a solution of lower concentration (5%/5%). A total of 208 and 224 vitrification-warming cycles were performed for groups I and II, respectively. Both groups were equal in terms of maternal age, sperm parameters and number and quality of blastocysts vitrified, warmed and transferred per cycle. Importantly, there was no significant difference between the groups in the analysed outcomes; embryo survival rate (84.1% versus 82.1%), clinical pregnancy rate (45.9% versus 42.4%), implantation rate (25.6% versus 24.5%), cycle cancellation rate (6.7% versus 8.5%) and live birth rate (41.2% versus 41.0%). These data suggest that ultra-rapid vitrification may be replaced by aseptic vitrification without affecting clinical efficiency.