0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Outcomes of Fresh and Cryopreserved Oocyte Donation FREE

Vitaly A. Kushnir, MD1; David H. Barad, MD, MS1; David F. Albertini, PhD1; Sarah K. Darmon, PhD1; Norbert Gleicher, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Center for Human Reproduction, New York, New York
JAMA. 2015;314(6):623-624. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.7556.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Use of oocytes donated for in vitro fertilization (IVF) has increased in recent years.1 Donated fresh oocytes traditionally have been used immediately, creating embryos for transfer into the uterus, with extra embryos being cryopreserved for later use. In January 2013, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declared the technique of oocyte cryopreservation (egg freezing) no longer experimental, although it called for “more widespread clinic-specific data on the safety and efficacy of oocyte cryopreservation … before universal donor oocyte banking can be recommended.”2

Based on data that IVF outcomes with cryopreserved and fresh donor oocytes are comparable,3 some IVF centers established frozen donor egg banks. However, data reflecting IVF outcomes in routine clinical practice with cryopreserved donor oocytes have not been published.

We used data from the 2013 annual report of US IVF center outcomes published by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology4 to compare live birth and cycle cancellation rates using either fresh or cryopreserved donor oocytes. This aggregate data set is based on center-specific voluntarily reported outcomes from 380 of 467 (81.4%) US-based fertility centers, which in 2013 collectively performed 91.7% of all IVF cycles. Once verified, data are transmitted to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in accordance with legal requirements.5

Annual validation via select onsite visits, including chart review, suggests low-discrepancy rates (<5%) for reported data,6 which are publicly available online.4 Because individual patients cannot be identified, the study received expedited institutional review board approval and a waiver of the need for informed consent. Cycles involving cryopreserved embryos were excluded.

Canceled cycles and live births per recipient IVF cycle start and per embryo transfer procedure were compared using the 2-tailed Fisher exact test and the Wilson test for binomial proportions. The number of embryos transferred was compared using a 2-sided Wald test and a P value for Poisson distribution. A 2-sided P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

Of 11 148 oocyte donation cycles, 2227 (20.0%) involved use of cryopreserved donor oocytes (Table). Initiated cycles were canceled in 11.7% of fresh oocyte cycles vs 8.5% of cryopreserved oocyte cycles (difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 1.9%-4.6%]; P < .001). Per started recipient cycle, the live birth rates were 49.6% with fresh vs 43.2% with cryopreserved oocytes (difference, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1%-8.7%]; P < .001). Per embryo transfer, the live birth rates were 56.1% with fresh vs 47.1% with cryopreserved oocytes (difference, 9.0% [95% CI, 6.6%-11.4%]; P < .001). Patients using fresh oocytes had a mean of 1.7 embryos transferred vs 1.6 embryos for patients using cryopreserved oocytes (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, 0-0.2]; P = .001).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Outcomes of Fresh and Cryopreserved Donor Oocyte Cycles Reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology in 2013

In 2013, 20.0% of all studied donor egg recipient cycles used cryopreserved oocytes. In vitro fertilization using cryopreserved donor oocytes was associated with lower cancellation rates, but also lower live birth rates than donor cycles using fresh oocytes.

Availability of cryopreserved oocytes simplifies IVF logistics because coordination with the donor’s cycle is no longer necessary. Banked oocytes also may reduce costs per IVF cycle because oocytes from one donor can be shared by several recipients. However, the added convenience and lower cycle costs must be balanced against the lower live birth rates with use of cryopreserved oocytes.

The reasons for lower live birth rates with use of cryopreserved oocytes remain to be established. One possible explanation is less opportunity for proper embryo selection due to smaller starting numbers of oocytes, leading to fewer embryos available for transfer. Alternatively, oocyte quality may be negatively affected by cryopreservation and thawing.

These findings need to be viewed with caution because they are based on anonymized aggregate outcomes, which do not allow adjustments for confounding patient characteristics, such as donor and recipient ages, infertility diagnosis, and embryo stage. Another limitation is inability to account for clustering of cycles within patients because data are reported per cycle rather than per patient. Therefore, even though these data offer new information about use of cryopreserved oocytes in donation cycles, they also demonstrate the need for additional studies.

Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Deputy Editor.

Corresponding Author: Vitaly A. Kushnir, MD, Center for Human Reproduction, 21 E 69th St, New York, NY 10021 (vkushnir@thechr.com).

Author Contributions: Dr Kushnir had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Kushnir, Barad.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kushnir.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Kushnir, Darmon.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Barad, Gleicher.

Study supervision: Gleicher.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Kushnir reported serving as a consultant to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Drs Kushnir, Barad, and Gleicher reported being co-owners of a number of already awarded and still pending US patents; however, none are related to the topic of this article. Drs Barad and Gleicher reported receiving patent royalties from Fertility Nutraceuticals LLC. Dr Gleicher reported being a shareholder in Fertility Nutraceuticals LLC and owner of the Center for Human Reproduction (CHR). The CHR routinely reports in vitro fertilization outcome data annually to the CDC and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. No other disclosures were reported.

Kawwass  JF, Monsour  M, Crawford  S,  et al; National ART Surveillance System (NASS) Group.  Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000-2010. JAMA. 2013;310(22):2426-2434.
PubMed
Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.  Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):37-43.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cobo  A, Meseguer  M, Remohí  J, Pellicer  A.  Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2239-2246.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. National data summary. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0. Accessed March 3, 2015.
Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, Pub L No. 102–493, 106 Stat 3146.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology: 2012 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2014.

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Outcomes of Fresh and Cryopreserved Donor Oocyte Cycles Reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology in 2013

References

Kawwass  JF, Monsour  M, Crawford  S,  et al; National ART Surveillance System (NASS) Group.  Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000-2010. JAMA. 2013;310(22):2426-2434.
PubMed
Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.  Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):37-43.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cobo  A, Meseguer  M, Remohí  J, Pellicer  A.  Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2239-2246.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. National data summary. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0. Accessed March 3, 2015.
Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, Pub L No. 102–493, 106 Stat 3146.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology: 2012 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2014.
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2,683 Views
1 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Fertility preservation in Turner syndrome. Fertil Steril 2016;105(1):13-9.
Jobs