We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cryopreserved oocyte versus fresh oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles, United States, 2013.
Fertility and Sterility 2017 January
OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, explore predictors, and compare assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle, transfer, and pregnancy outcomes of autologous and donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles with fresh oocyte cycles.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from the National ART Surveillance System.
SETTING: Fertility treatment centers.
PATIENT(S): Fresh embryo cycles initiated in 2013 utilizing embryos created with fresh and cryopreserved, autologous and donor oocytes.
INTERVENTION(S): Cryopreservation of oocytes versus fresh.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates per cycle, transfer, and/or pregnancy.
RESULT(S): There was no evidence of differences in cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, or live birth rates between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles had a decreased risk of cancellation before transfer (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.96) as well as decreased likelihood of pregnancy (aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95) and live birth (aRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95); however, there was no evidence of differences in implantation, pregnancy, or live birth rates when cycles were restricted to those proceeding to transfer. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles proceeding to pregnancy had a decreased risk of miscarriage (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97) and higher live birth rate (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09) with the transfer of one embryo, but higher miscarriage rate (aRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.54) and lower live birth rate (aRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) with the transfer of two or more.
CONCLUSION(S): There was no evidence of differences in ART outcomes between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. There was evidence of differences in per-cycle and per-pregnancy outcomes between donor cryopreserved and fresh oocyte cycles, but not in per-transfer outcomes.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from the National ART Surveillance System.
SETTING: Fertility treatment centers.
PATIENT(S): Fresh embryo cycles initiated in 2013 utilizing embryos created with fresh and cryopreserved, autologous and donor oocytes.
INTERVENTION(S): Cryopreservation of oocytes versus fresh.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates per cycle, transfer, and/or pregnancy.
RESULT(S): There was no evidence of differences in cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, miscarriage, or live birth rates between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles had a decreased risk of cancellation before transfer (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.96) as well as decreased likelihood of pregnancy (aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95) and live birth (aRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95); however, there was no evidence of differences in implantation, pregnancy, or live birth rates when cycles were restricted to those proceeding to transfer. Donor cryopreserved oocyte cycles proceeding to pregnancy had a decreased risk of miscarriage (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97) and higher live birth rate (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09) with the transfer of one embryo, but higher miscarriage rate (aRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.54) and lower live birth rate (aRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) with the transfer of two or more.
CONCLUSION(S): There was no evidence of differences in ART outcomes between autologous fresh and cryopreserved oocyte cycles. There was evidence of differences in per-cycle and per-pregnancy outcomes between donor cryopreserved and fresh oocyte cycles, but not in per-transfer outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app