BACKGROUND
Vitrification is now a commonly applied technique for cryopreservation in assisted reproductive technology (ART) replacing, in many cases, conventional slow cooling methodology. This review examines evidence relevant to comparison of the two approaches applied to human oocytes and embryos at different developmental stages.
METHODS
Critical review of the published literature using PubMed with particular emphasis on studies which include data on survival and implantation rates, data from fresh control groups and evaluation of the two approaches in a single setting.
RESULTS
Slow cooling is associated with lower survival rates and compromised development relative to vitrification when applied to metaphase II (MII) oocytes, although the vitrification results have predominantly been obtained using direct contact with liquid nitrogen and there is some evidence that optimal protocols for slow cooling of MII oocytes are yet to be established. There are no prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which support the use of either technique with pronuclear oocytes although vitrification has become the method of choice. Optimal slow cooling, using modifications of traditional methodology, and vitrification can result in high survival rates of early embryos, which implant at the same rate as equivalent fresh counterparts. Many studies report high survival and implantation rates following vitrification of blastocysts. Although slow cooling of blastocysts has been reported to be inferior in some studies, others comparing the two approaches in the same clinical setting have demonstrated comparable results. The variation in the extent of embryo selection applied in studies can lead to apparent differences in clinical efficiency, which may not be significant if expressed on a ‘per oocyte used’ basis.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests that vitrification is the current method of choice when cryopreserving MII oocytes. Early cleavage stage embryos can be cryopreserved with equal success using slow cooling and vitrification. Successful blastocyst cryopreservation may be more consistently achieved with vitrification but optimal slow cooling can produce similar results. There are key limitations associated with the available evidence base, including a paucity of RCTs, limited reporting of live birth outcomes and limited reporting of detail which would allow assessment of the impact of differences in female age. While vitrification has a clear role in ART, we support continued research to establish optimal slow cooling methods which may assist in alleviating concerns over safety issues, such as storage, transport and the use of very high cryoprotectant concentrations.
Source:
http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/rss/current.xml
Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith
