Egg donation of vitrified oocytes bank produces similar pregnancy rates by blastocyst transfer when compared to fresh cycle.

OA: closed
AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-23

This retrospective study of 504 egg donation cycles found that vitrified oocytes yielded similar clinical pregnancy rates to fresh oocytes following blastocyst transfer, supporting the use of oocyte banks.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-23 · read from full text

This retrospective observational study compared clinical outcomes between fresh and vitrified oocyte donation cycles in an egg donation program, analyzing data from 504 cycles involving donors under age thirty. Recipients of vitrified oocytes demonstrated pregnancy rates of 59.0 percent, which were statistically similar to the 60.9 percent rate observed in the fresh oocyte group following blastocyst transfer. The authors conclude that using a bank of vitrified oocytes is a safe and effective alternative to fresh cycles, potentially offering logistical advantages for cycle scheduling without compromising success rates. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

PurposeAdvances in reproductive techniques, mainly the introduction of oocyte vitrification, have provided the opportunity to conceive from oocyte banks. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of fresh and vitrified oocytes in an egg donation program following blastocyst transfer.MethodsThis retrospective observational study included 504 oocyte donation cycles. All donor women were younger than 30 years of age. The recipient cycles were divided into two groups: fresh oocytes (n = 78) or vitrified oocytes (n = 426). All oocytes were fertilized by ICSI using ejaculated sperm, followed by blastocyst transfer. Endometrium preparation was performed with estradiol valerate plus micronized progesterone according to standard protocols.ResultsRecipients were of similar age (fresh 42.0 ± 4.5 years vs vitrified 41.8 ± 4.8 years; p = 0.790). The fresh group received more mature oocytes for injection compared to the vitrified group (10.1 ± 2.8 vs 9.2 ± 2.2; p = 0.005). The two pronuclei (2PN) rate (74.5 vs 77.4%; p = 0.195) and blastocyst rate (48.8 vs 51.6%; 0.329) were similar between the fresh and vitrified groups, respectively. The rates of clinical pregnancy were 60.9% in the fresh and 59.0% in the vitrified groups (p = 0.771).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that vitrified oocytes result in similar pregnancy rates when compared to fresh oocytes with blastocyst transfer in an egg donation program. Moreover, vitrified oocytes may allow for a better cycle schedule, starting with a lower number of oocytes to be fertilized. Therefore, we hypothesize that egg banks with vitrified oocytes could be safely utilized in an egg donation program.
Full text 4,962 characters · extracted from oa-html · 6 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Purpose Advances in reproductive techniques, mainly the introduction of oocyte vitrification, have provided the opportunity to conceive from oocyte banks. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of fresh and vitrified oocytes in an egg donation program following blastocyst transfer.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included 504 oocyte donation cycles. All donor women were younger than 30 years of age. The recipient cycles were divided into two groups: fresh oocytes (n = 78) or vitrified oocytes (n = 426). All oocytes were fertilized by ICSI using ejaculated sperm, followed by blastocyst transfer. Endometrium preparation was performed with estradiol valerate plus micronized progesterone according to standard protocols.

Results

Recipients were of similar age (fresh 42.0 ± 4.5 years vs vitrified 41.8 ± 4.8 years; p = 0.790). The fresh group received more mature oocytes for injection compared to the vitrified group (10.1 ± 2.8 vs 9.2 ± 2.2; p = 0.005). The two pronuclei (2PN) rate (74.5 vs 77.4%; p = 0.195) and blastocyst rate (48.8 vs 51.6%; 0.329) were similar between the fresh and vitrified groups, respectively. The rates of clinical pregnancy were 60.9% in the fresh and 59.0% in the vitrified groups (p = 0.771).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that vitrified oocytes result in similar pregnancy rates when compared to fresh oocytes with blastocyst transfer in an egg donation program. Moreover, vitrified oocytes may allow for a better cycle schedule, starting with a lower number of oocytes to be fertilized. Therefore, we hypothesize that egg banks with vitrified oocytes could be safely utilized in an egg donation program. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Chen C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet. 1986;1:884–6. Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:37–43. Ubaldi F, Anniballo R, Romano S, Baroni E, Albricci L, Colamaria 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. 2010;25:1199–205. Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:66–73. De Munck N, Belva F, Van de Velde H, Verheyen G, Stoop D. Closed oocyte vitrification and storage in an oocyte donation programme: obstetric and neonatal outcome. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(5):1024–33. Cobo A, Serra V, Garrido N, Olmo I, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1006–15. e4 Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Perez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1657–64. Grifo JA, Noyes N. Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:391–6. Nagy ZP, Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Bernal DP, Elsner CW, Mitchell-Leef D, et al. Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:520–6. Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2239–46. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340:17–8. Chian RC, Huang JY, Tan SL, Lucena E, Saa A, Rojas A, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcome in 200 infants conceived from vitrified oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;16:608–10. Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;18:769–76. Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Outcomes of fresh and cryopreserved oocyte donation. JAMA. 2015;314:623–4.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the team from Huntington Reproductive Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil, for excellent support with patients and procedures. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Domingues, T.S., Aquino, A.P., Barros, B. et al. Egg donation of vitrified oocytes bank produces similar pregnancy rates by blastocyst transfer when compared to fresh cycle. J Assist Reprod Genet 34, 1553–1557 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1017-0 Received: Accepted: Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1017-0

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-09-13T09:25:22.628771+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-09-14T06:35:54.356137+00:00