Kostoglou Kyparissia, Michos Georgios, Najdecki Robert, Tsakiridis Ioannis, Tatiana Chartomatsidou, Chouliara Foteini, Dagklis Themistoklis I, Mamopoulos Apostolos M, Papanikolaou Evangelos
Private IVF Unit, Assisting Nature Centre of Reproduction and Genetics, Thessaloniki, GRC.
3rd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, GRC.
Cureus. 2025 Apr 19;17(4):e82589. doi: 10.7759/cureus.82589. eCollection 2025 Apr.
Background Oocyte donation is a well-established treatment for age-related infertility, diminished ovarian reserve, and other reproductive challenges. The introduction of vitrification has expanded its feasibility by enabling oocyte cryobanking, reducing logistical constraints, and improving accessibility. However, debate persists regarding whether clinical outcomes differ between fresh and vitrified donor oocytes, particularly when embryos undergo double vitrification at both the oocyte and blastocyst stages. This study aims to compare cumulative live birth rates between fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes in oocyte donation cycles. Methodology This retrospective cohort study analyzed 214 oocyte recipient cycles conducted at Assisting Nature Fertility Center from January 2018 to January 2023. Group A (n=112) received fresh donor oocytes, while Group B (n=102) received vitrified donor oocytes. Key outcomes included fertilization rate, blastulation rate, cumulative positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin rate, cumulative clinical pregnancy rate, and cumulative live birth rate. Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance set at p<0.05. Results Oocyte survival after thawing was 96%, with similar fertilization (87% vs. 84%) and blastulation rates (70% vs. 65%) between fresh and vitrified oocytes, respectively. Live birth rates after the first embryo transfer were comparable between Group A (59.8%) and Group B (58.8%; p>0.05). Cumulative live birth rates, including pregnancies from second and third embryo transfers, were 69.6% in Group A and 66.7% in Group B, with no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). Despite a slight trend toward lower initial pregnancy rates in the vitrified donor oocyte group, cumulative outcomes remained comparable between the two groups. Conclusions Both fresh and cryopreserved oocyte donation programs produce similar fertilization, blastulation, and cumulative live birth rates. The findings suggest that double vitrification (oocyte and embryo stages) does not negatively impact embryo viability or pregnancy success. Oocyte vitrification should be considered a routine option in oocyte donation programs if laboratories ensure their vitrification protocols yield outcomes comparable to fresh oocyte cycles.
卵母细胞捐赠是一种成熟的治疗方法，用于治疗与年龄相关的不孕症、卵巢储备功能减退及其他生殖方面的挑战。玻璃化冷冻技术的引入通过实现卵母细胞冷冻保存、减少后勤限制并提高可及性，扩大了卵母细胞捐赠的可行性。然而，关于新鲜和玻璃化冷冻的供体卵母细胞的临床结局是否存在差异仍存在争议，尤其是当胚胎在卵母细胞和囊胚阶段都经历双重玻璃化冷冻时。本研究旨在比较卵母细胞捐赠周期中新鲜和冷冻保存的供体卵母细胞的累积活产率。
这项回顾性队列研究分析了2018年1月至2023年1月在辅助自然生育中心进行的214个卵母细胞受者周期。A组（n = 112）接受新鲜供体卵母细胞，而B组（n = 102）接受玻璃化冷冻的供体卵母细胞。主要结局包括受精率、囊胚形成率、累积β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素阳性率、累积临床妊娠率和累积活产率。采用t检验和卡方检验进行统计学比较，显著性设定为p < 0.05。
解冻后卵母细胞存活率为96%，新鲜和玻璃化冷冻的卵母细胞的受精率（分别为87%对84%）和囊胚形成率（分别为70%对65%）相似。A组（59.8%）和B组（58.8%；p > 0.05）首次胚胎移植后的活产率相当。包括第二次和第三次胚胎移植后的妊娠在内的累积活产率，A组为69.6%，B组为66.7%，无统计学显著差异（p > 0.05）。尽管玻璃化冷冻的供体卵母细胞组的初始妊娠率有轻微下降趋势，但两组的累积结局仍然相当。
新鲜和冷冻保存的卵母细胞捐赠方案产生相似的受精率、囊胚形成率和累积活产率。研究结果表明，双重玻璃化冷冻（卵母细胞和胚胎阶段）不会对胚胎活力或妊娠成功率产生负面影响。如果实验室确保其玻璃化冷冻方案产生的结果与新鲜卵母细胞周期相当，卵母细胞玻璃化冷冻应被视为卵母细胞捐赠方案中的常规选择。
