From a backup technology to a strategy-outlining approach: the success story of cryopreservation

References

• Leibo SP, Pool TB. The principal variables of cryopreservation: solutions, temperatures, and rate changes. Fertil. Steril. 96(2), 269–276 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith GD, Motta EE, Serafini P. Theoretical and experimental basis of oocyte vitrification. Reprod. Biomed. Online 23(3), 298–306 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herrero L, Martínez M, Garcia-Velasco JA. Current status of human oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 23(4), 245–250 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boldt J. Current results with slow freezing and vitrification of the human oocyte. Reprod. Biomed. Online 23(3), 314–322 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vajta G. Vitrification in human and domestic animal embryology: work in progress. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. doi:org/10.1071/RD12118 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum. Reprod. Update 18(5), 536–554 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy ZP, Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Bernal DP, Kort HI, Vajta G. The efficacy and safety of human oocyte vitrification. Semin. Reprod. Med. 27(6), 450–455 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vajta G, Nagy ZP. Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod. Biomed. Online 12(6), 779–796 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw JM, Jones GM. Terminology associated with vitrification and other cryopreservation procedures for oocytes and embryos. Hum. Reprod. Update 9(6), 583–605 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rall WF, Fahy GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at -196 degrees C by vitrification. Nature 313(6003), 573–575 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderzwalmen P, Delval A, Chatzipoarasidou A et al. Pregnancies after vitrification of human day 5 embryos. Hum. Reprod. 12(Suppl.), 98 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Mukaida T, Wada S, Takahashi K, Pedro PB, An TZ, Kasai M. Vitrification of human embryos based on the assessment of suitable conditions for 8-cell mouse embryos. Hum. Reprod. 13(10), 2874–2879 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuleshova L, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Ferraretti A, Trounson A. Birth following vitrification of a small number of human oocytes: case report. Hum. Reprod. 14(12), 3077–3079 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yokota Y, Sato S, Yokota M et al. Successful pregnancy following blastocyst vitrification: case report. Hum. Reprod. 15(8), 1802–1803 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vanderzwalmen P, Zech N, Lejeune B, Wirtleitner B, Zech M, Ectors F. Vitrification and the use of high concentrations of cryoprotectants: is it a justified argument to prefer slow freezing? Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 38(9), 536–540 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kartberg AJ, Hambiliki F, Arvidsson T, Stavreus-Evers A, Svalander P. Vitrification with DMSO protects embryo membrane integrity better than solutions without DMSO. Reprod. Biomed. Online 17(3), 378–384 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aye M, Di Giorgio C, De Mo M, Botta A, Perrin J, Courbiere B. Assessment of the genotoxicity of three cryoprotectants used for human oocyte vitrification: dimethyl sulfoxide, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Food Chem. Toxicol. 48(7), 1905–1912 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almansoori KA, Prasad V, Forbes JF et al. Cryoprotective agent toxicity interactions in human articular chondrocytes. Cryobiology 64(3), 185–191 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lawson A, Ahmad H, Sambanis A. Cytotoxicity effects of cryoprotectants as single-component and cocktail vitrification solutions. Cryobiology 62(2), 115–122 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobo A, Diaz C. Clinical application of oocyte vitrification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil. Steril. 96(2), 277–285 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobo A, de los Santos MJ, Castello D, Gamiz P, Campos P, Remohi J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil. Steril. 98(5), 1138–1146 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sifer C, Sermondade N, Dupont C et al. [Outcome of embryo vitrification compared to slow freezing process at early cleavage stages. Report of the first French birth]. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 40(3), 158–161 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bianchi V, Lappi M, Bonu MA, Borini A. Oocyte slow freezing using a 0.2–0.3 M sucrose concentration protocol: is it really the time to trash the cryopreservation machine? Fertil. Steril. 97(5), 1101–1107 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Santis L, Coticchio G. Theoretical and experimental basis of slow freezing. Reprod. Biomed. Online 22(2), 125–132 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martínez-Burgos M, Herrero L, Megías D et al. Vitrification versus slow freezing of oocytes: effects on morphologic appearance, meiotic spindle configuration, and DNA damage. Fertil. Steril. 95(1), 374–377 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online 20(2), 209–222 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 90(1), 186–193 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod. Biomed. Online 18(6), 769–776 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chian RC, Huang JY, Gilbert L et al. Obstetric outcomes following vitrification of in vitro and in vivo matured oocytes. Fertil. Steril. 91(6), 2391–2398 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kato O, Kawasaki N, Bodri D et al. Neonatal outcome and birth defects in 6623 singletons born following minimal ovarian stimulation and vitrified versus fresh single embryo transfer. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 161(1), 46–50 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A. To transfer fresh or thawed embryos? Semin. Reprod. Med. 30(3), 230–235 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonetti A, Cervi M, Tomei F, Marchini M, Ortolani F, Manno M. Ultrastructural evaluation of human metaphase II oocytes after vitrification: closed versus open devices. Fertil. Steril. 95(3), 928–935 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 25(9), 2239–2246 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Pérez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil. Steril. 89(6), 1657–1664 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling–oocyte study. Hum. Reprod. 25(1), 66–73 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García JI, Noriega-Portella L, Noriega-Hoces L. Efficacy of oocyte vitrification combined with blastocyst stage transfer in an egg donation program. Hum. Reprod. 26(4), 782–790 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Trokoudes KM, Pavlides C, Zhang X. Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil. Steril. 95(6), 1996–2000 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmegiani L, Cognigni GE, Bernardi S et al. Efficiency of aseptic open vitrification and hermetical cryostorage of human oocytes. Reprod. Biomed. Online 23(4), 505–512 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucena E, Bernal DP, Lucena C, Rojas A, Moran A, Lucena A. Successful ongoing pregnancies after vitrification of oocytes. Fertil. Steril. 85(1), 108–111 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antinori M, Licata E, Dani G, Cerusico F, Versaci C, Antinori S. Cryotop vitrification of human oocytes results in high survival rate and healthy deliveries. Reprod. Biomed. Online 14(1), 72–79 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubaldi F, Anniballo R, Romano S et al. Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate achieved with oocyte vitrification and cleavage stage transfer without embryo selection in a standard infertility program. Hum. Reprod. 25(5), 1199–1205 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forman EJ, Li X, Ferry KM, Scott K, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. Oocyte vitrification does not increase the risk of embryonic aneuploidy or diminish the implantation potential of blastocysts created after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel, paired randomized controlled trial using DNA fingerprinting. Fertil. Steril. 98(3), 644–649 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Pietro C, Vento M, Guglielmino MR et al. Molecular profiling of human oocytes after vitrification strongly suggests that they are biologically comparable with freshly isolated gametes. Fertil. Steril. 94(7), 2804–2807 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Ieda S, Kato O. Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrification of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reprod. Biomed. Online 11(5), 608–614 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kansal Kalra S, Ratcliffe SJ, Milman L, Gracia CR, Coutifaris C, Barnhart KT. Perinatal morbidity after in vitro fertilization is lower with frozen embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 95(2), 548–553 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Check JH, Summers-Chase D, Yuan W, Swenson K, Horwath D. Length of time of embryo storage does not negatively influence pregnancy rates after thawing and transfer. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 37(3), 185–186 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson C, Check JH, Summers-Chase D, Choe JK, Amui J, Brasile D. Effect of the length of time that donated embryos are frozen on pregnancy outcome. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 37(3), 181–182 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dowling-Lacey D, Mayer JF, Jones E, Bocca S, Stadtmauer L, Oehninger S. Live birth from a frozen–thawed pronuclear stage embryo almost 20 years after its cryopreservation. Fertil. Steril. 95(3), 1120.e1–1120.e3 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Kim TJ, Hong SW. Successful live birth from vitrified oocytes after 5 years of cryopreservation. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 28(1), 73–76 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rudick B, Opper N, Paulson R, Bendikson K, Chung K. The status of oocyte cryopreservation in the United States. Fertil. Steril. 94(7), 2642–2646 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu KE, Greenblatt EM. Oocyte cryopreservation in Canada: a survey of Canadian ART clinics. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 34(3), 250–256 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lockwood GM. Social egg freezing: the prospect of reproductive ‘immortality’ or a dangerous delusion? Reprod. Biomed. Online 23(3), 334–340 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dondorp W, de Wert WG, Pennings G et al. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum. Reprod. 27, 1231–1237 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rienzi L, Cobo A, Paffoni A et al. Consistent and predictable delivery rates after oocyte vitrification: an observational longitudinal cohort multicentric study. Hum. Reprod. 27(6), 1601–1612 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Cobo A, Remohí J, Chang CC, Nagy ZP. Oocyte cryopreservation for donor egg banking. Reprod. Biomed. Online 23(3), 341–346 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borini A, Suriano R, Barberi M, Dal Prato L, Bulletti C. Oocyte donation programs: strategy for improving results. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1221, 27–31 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen–thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil. Steril. 96(2), 344–348 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen–thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil. Steril. 96(2), 516–518 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S et al. Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles – time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil. Steril. 95(5), 1691–1695 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang EM, Han JE, Kim YS, Lyu SW, Lee WS, Yoon TK. Use of the natural cycle and vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer results in better in-vitro fertilization outcomes: cycle regimens of vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 28(4), 369–374 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao Z, Zhou X, Xu W, Yang J, Xie Q. Natural cycle is superior to hormone replacement therapy cycle for vitrificated-preserved frozen–thawed embryo transfer. Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med. 58(2), 107–112 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griesinger G, Schultz L, Bauer T, Broessner A, Frambach T, Kissler S. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in combination with a ‘freeze-all’ strategy: a prospective multicentric study. Fertil. Steril. 95(6), 2029–2033, 2033.e1 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Angelo A. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention strategies: cryopreservation of all embryos. Semin. Reprod. Med. 28(6), 513–518 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishihara O, Kuwahara A, Saitoh H. Frozen–thawed blastocyst transfer reduces ectopic pregnancy risk: an analysis of single embryo transfer cycles in Japan. Fertil. Steril. 95(6), 1966–1969 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarze JE, Balmaceda J, Pommer R. Cryopreservation in blastocyst stage effectively reduce the number of embryos cryopreserved. Rev. Med. Chil. 140(1), 45–49 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vanderzwalmen P, Bertin G, Debauche CH et al. Births after vitrification at morula and blastocyst stages: effect of artificial reduction of the blastocoelic cavity before vitrification. Hum. Reprod. 17(3), 744–751 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Son WY, Yoon SH, Yoon HJ, Lee SM, Lim JH. Pregnancy outcome following transfer of human blastocysts vitrified on electron microscopy grids after induced collapse of the blastocoele. Hum. Reprod. 18(1), 137–139 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng GX, Zhang B, Shu JH et al. Effects of artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles before vitrification on pregnancy outcome. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 45(11), 838–842 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iwayama H, Hochi S, Yamashita M. in vitro and in vivo viability of human blastocysts collapsed by laser pulse or osmotic shock prior to vitrification. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 28(4), 355–361 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukaida T, Oka C, Goto T, Takahashi K. Artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles using either a micro-needle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum. Reprod. 21(12), 3246–3252 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debrock S, Peeraer K, Spiessens C, Willemen D, De Loecker P, D’Hooghe TM. The effect of modified quarter laser-assisted zona thinning on the implantation rate per embryo in frozen/vitrified–thawed/warmed embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod. 26(8), 1997–2007 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vanderzwalmen P, Bertin G, Debauche CH et al. Vitrification of human blastocysts with the Hemi-Straw carrier: application of assisted hatching after thawing. Hum. Reprod. 18(7), 1504–1511 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy screening for embryo selection. Semin. Reprod. Med. 30(4), 289–301 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Sengupta SB. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art 2011. Hum. Genet. 131(2), 175–186 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu K, Montag M. New perspectives on embryo biopsy: not how, but when and why? Semin. Reprod. Med. 30(4), 259–266 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RT, Tao X, Taylor D, Ferry KM, Treff NR. A prospective randomized controlled trial demonstrating significantly increased clinical pregnancy rates following 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening: biopsy and analysis on day 5 with fresh transfer. Fertil. Steril. 94, S2 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, Taylor D, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum. Reprod. 27(4), 1217–1222 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keskintepe L, Sher G, Machnicka A et al. Vitrification of human embryos subjected to blastomere biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening produces higher survival and pregnancy rates than slow freezing. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 26(11–12), 629–635 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, Ferry K, Katz-Jaffe M, Scott RT Jr. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil. Steril. 96(3), 638–640 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper J, Magli MC, Lundin K, Barratt CL, Brison D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? Hum. Reprod. 27(2), 303–313 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brezis M, Malkiel A, Chinitz D, Lehmann LS. Discordant views of experts and laypersons on the adoption of new fertility technology. Med. Care 49(4), 420–423 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pribenszky C, Vajta G, Molnar M et al. Stress for stress tolerance? A fundamentally new approach in mammalian embryology. Biol. Reprod. 83(5), 690–697 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pribenszky C, Vajta G. Cells under pressure: how sublethal hydrostatic pressure stress treatment increases gametes’ and embryos’ performance. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 23(1), 48–55 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pribenszky C, Lin L, Du Y, Losonczi E, Dinnyes A, Vajta G. Controlled stress improves oocyte performance – cell preconditioning in assisted reproduction. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 47(Suppl. 4), 197–206 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reichart A, Uhereczky G, Sipos M, Forgacs V, Vajta G. Progress towards a universal warming method after vitrification. Presented at: 16th World Congress on in vitro Fertilization. Tokyo, Japan, 10–13 September 2011.
   Google Scholar