Vitrified vs slow frozen blastocysts- a clinical audit for 706 embryos alpha-cawood_susanne_2010_fc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Vitrified vs slow frozen blastocysts- a clinical audit for 706 embryos alpha-cawood_susanne_2010_fc

on

  • 960 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
960
Views on SlideShare
960
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Vitrified vs slow frozen blastocysts- a clinical audit for 706 embryos alpha-cawood_susanne_2010_fc Vitrified vs slow frozen blastocysts- a clinical audit for 706 embryos alpha-cawood_susanne_2010_fc Presentation Transcript

  • VITRIFIED VS. SLOW-FROZEN BLASTOCYSTS: A CLINICAL AUDIT FOR 706 EMBRYOS Cawood, S., Doshi, A. and Gotts, S. The Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health, London, UK.
  • Aim To retrospectively analyse and compare SR, PR, CPR and IR between FTET patients whose embryos were slow frozen versus those patients whose embryos were vitrified. Results to be calculated per embryo thawed
  • Method – Raw Data Inclusion Criteria: All FTET cycles where a blastocyst (day 5/6) was thawed/warmed between the period 01.01.2006 – 31.11.2009.
  • Method – Media and Protocols Slow frozen embryos were frozen using G- FreezeKit Blast™ and thawed with G- ThawKit Blast™ (glycerol + sucrose) according to the Vitrolife protocols. Blastocysts were vitrified using COOK (Sydney IVF) media; Blastocyst Freezing Kit and warmed using Blastocyst Thawing Kit (DMSO, ethylene glycol and trehalose).
  • Method – Statistical Analysis A chi-squared test (with continuity correction) was used to compare the two proportions and two-sample t-tests to compare patient populations. Logistic regression was then performed to compare end points. Multiple regression was used (after adjusting for age) to calculate rates ‘per embryo thawed’ for each patient.
  • Results No statistical difference between: > day of freeze (d5/6) A difference was found in the patient’s age Mean Age: 35.2 SD 4.45 (vitrified-warmed) Mean Age: 36.4 SD 4.24 (slow-thawed)
  • Results and significance values after adjusting for age VITRIFIED-WARMED SLOW FROZEN- THAWED NO. OF EMBRYOS 347 359 THAWED SURVIVAL RATE 317/347 (91.4%) 274/359 (76.3%) p = 0.001 P.R. PER EMBRYO 94/347 (27.1%) 71/359 (19.8%) THAWED p = 0.01 C.P.R. PER EMBRYO 80/347 (23.1%) 56/359 (15.6%) THAWED p = 0.003 I.R. PER EMBRYO 106/347 (30.5%) 68/359 (18.9%) THAWED p = 0.001
  • Conclusion A retrospective audit of CRGH data Highly significant improvement in all outcome measures when embryos were vitrified Cryopreservation programmes of utmost importance in era of eSET (cumulative pregnancy rates) Prospective randomised trials, long term data needed.
  • Thank You