The Human Oocyte Preservation Experience (HOPE) Registry: evaluation of cryopreservation techniques and oocyte source on outcomes. Issue 1 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nagy, Zsolt; Anderson, Robert; Feinberg, Eve; Hayward, Brooke; Mahony, Mary
• Is Part Of: Reproductive biology and endocrinology. Volume 15:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 10
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Assisted reproductive technology -- Slow-freezing -- Vitrification -- Donor oocytes -- Autologous oocytes; Reproduction -- Periodicals; Generative organs -- Pathophysiology -- Periodicals; Reproduction -- Endocrine aspects -- Periodicals; Endocrine glands -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Embryology -- Periodicals; 571.8
• DOI: 10.1186/s12958-017-0228-7
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-7827

Abstract

Abstract Background This prospective, Phase IV, multicenter, observational registry of assisted reproductive technology clinics in the USA studied outcomes of first cycles using thawed/warmed cryopreserved (by slow-freezing/vitrification) oocytes (autologous or donor). Methods Patients were followed up through implantation, clinical pregnancy, and birth outcomes. The main outcome measure was live birth rate (LBR), defined as the ratio of live births to oocytes thawed/warmed minus the number of embryos cryopreserved for each cycle, averaged over all thawing cycles. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was also evaluated, and was defined as the presence of a fetal sac with heart activity, as detected by ultrasound scan performed on Day 35–42 after embryo transfer. Results A total of 16 centers enrolled 204 patients; data from 193 patients were available for analyses. For donor oocytes, in the slow-freezing (n = 40) versus vitrification (n = 94) groups, respectively, CPR and LBR were significantly different: 32.4% versus 62.6%, and 25.0% versus 52.1%; outcomes from Day 3 transfers did not differ significantly. For vitrified oocytes, in the autologous (n = 46) versus donor (n = 94) group, respectively, CPR and LBR were significantly different: 30.0% versus 62.6% and 17.4% versus 52.1%. This was largely due to a significant difference in CPR with Day 5/6 transfers. Conclusions In two subgroup data analyses, in women who received cryopreserved oocytes from donors, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in cycles using oocytes cryopreserved via vitrification versus slow-freezing, reflecting differences in methodologies and more Day 5/6 transfers; in women who received vitrified oocytes, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in cycles using donor versus autologous oocytes with Day 5/6 transfers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT00699400 . Registered June 13, 2008.