Frozen autologous and donor oocytes are associated with differences in clinical and neonatal outcomes compared with fresh oocytes: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System Analysis.

There were 154,706 total cycles identified in the SART CORS database that used embryos derived from fresh or frozen oocytes and resulted in a fresh ET between 2014 and 2015. This included 139,734 autologous oocyte cycles and 14,972 donor oocyte cycles to intended parent recipients, as shown in Table 1 . Although >99% (139,181) of autologous oocyte cycles used fresh oocytes, there were 553 cycles that used embryos derived from frozen-thawed oocytes ( Table 1 ). Women using frozen autologous oocytes tended to be older and have a lower BMI than women using fresh autologous oocytes (age: 38.6 ± 5.2 years [frozen] vs. 35 ± 4.7 years [fresh], BMI: 23.9 ± 4.9 kg/m 2 [frozen] vs. 25.6 ± 5.7 kg/m 2 [fresh]). The most common infertility diagnosis for women who underwent a transfer derived from frozen-thawed autologous oocytes was diminished (35.1%) ovarian reserve and other (37.1%), whereas for women who underwent a transfer derived from fresh autologous oocytes the most common diagnosis was male factor (35.4%). The mean number of embryos transferred was 1.9 ± 0.9 [frozen] vs. 1.8 ± 0.8 [fresh]. There was a lower proportion of elective single ET cycles in patients using frozen autologous oocytes compared with fresh oocytes (53.8% vs.73.7%). There was no difference in the likelihood of LB after fresh ET of embryos derived from frozen-thawed oocytes compared with fresh oocytes in autologous cycles (23.9% [frozen] vs. 25.7% [fresh], adjusted RR [aRR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.79–1.09) ( Table 2 ). No differences were observed in other pregnancy outcomes between embryos derived from frozen-thawed oocytes compared with fresh in autologous cycles, including the percentage of clinical pregnancy (28.2% [frozen] vs. 31% [fresh], aRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79–1.04), clinical miscarriage (11.2% [frozen] vs. 10.9% [fresh], aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81–1.31), and biochemical pregnancy loss (6.9% [frozen] vs. 5.8% [fresh], aRR 1.28, 95% CI 0.93–1.76) ( Table 2 ). There was, however, a higher percentage of high-birthweight infants (birthweight >4,000 g) observed in embryos derived from frozen-thawed autologous oocytes compared with fresh autologous oocytes (12.5% [frozen] vs. 4.5% [fresh], aRR 2.67, 95% CI 1.65–4.3). This remained true when the sample was limited to singleton pregnancies (17.3% [frozen] vs. 7.1% [fresh], aRR 2.77, 95% CI 1.74–4.42). No difference was observed in the percentage of low birthweight infants between frozen-thawed and fresh autologous oocytes, both overall (20.4% [frozen] vs. 28.4% [fresh], aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65–1.31) and when restricted to singleton gestations (10% [frozen] vs. 9.9% [fresh], aRR 1.13, 95% CI 0.56–2.27). Our second analysis examined frozen compared with fresh donor oocytes with fresh ETs into intended parent recipients. Of the 14,972 donor oocyte cycles that were analyzed, 11,482 (77%) used embryos derived from fresh donor oocytes, and 3,490 (23%) cycles used embryos derived from frozen-thawed donor oocytes ( Table 1 ). The average age of oocyte donors was similar in both groups (26 ± 3.2 [frozen] vs. 26.4 ± 3.7 [fresh]). The mean intended parent recipient age was also similar between the two groups (41.9 ± 4.8 [frozen] vs. 41.2 ± 5.6 [fresh]). The mean BMI of intended parent recipients was slightly higher in those utilizing frozen oocytes (26.9 ± 5.6 kg/m 2 [frozen] vs. 25.6 ± 5.4 kg/m 2 [fresh]). As expected, the most common infertility diagnosis for intended parent recipients in both groups was diminished ovarian reserve (83.7% [frozen] vs. 75.8% [fresh]). The mean number of embryos transferred was 1.5 ± 0.5 [frozen] vs. 1.6 ± 0.5 [fresh]. A lower proportion of frozen-donor oocyte cycles used elective single ET (79.7% [frozen] vs. 91.2% [fresh]). In unadjusted models, no difference in the likelihood of LB was noted with frozen-thawed donor oocytes compared with fresh donor oocytes (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98–1.07) ( Table 3 ). However, after the model was adjusted for maternal age, BMI, smoking status, parity, infertility diagnosis, number of embryos transferred, and preimplantation genetic testing, a decrease in the likelihood of LB was observed with frozen-donor oocytes in all pregnancies (aRR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77–0.85), compared with fresh donor oocytes. Similarly, a decrease was observed in the percentage of clinical pregnancy after fresh transfer of embryos using frozen-thawed donor oocytes relative to fresh donor oocytes in adjusted models (51% [frozen] vs. 48% [fresh], aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.8–0.87). Additionally, an increase in biochemical pregnancy loss was observed with frozen-donor oocyte cycles (8.6% [frozen] vs. 5.6% [fresh], aRR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05–1.43). Although not statistically significant, a trend toward a higher proportion of clinical miscarriage was noted with frozen-thawed oocytes compared with fresh (17.4% [frozen] vs. 12.6% [fresh], aRR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97–1.19). Additionally, there was a significantly higher proportion of high-birthweight infants noted after transfer of frozen-thawed donor oocytes compared with fresh donor oocytes (6.2% [frozen] vs. 4.6% [fresh], aRR 1.42, 95% CI 1.1–1.83); this finding remained when restricted to singleton gestations (9.4% [frozen] vs. 7.8% [fresh], aRR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07–1.77). There were no differences noted in the proportion of low-birthweight infants overall (29.5% [frozen] vs. 32.9% [fresh], aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94–1.12) or among singleton gestations only (12.6% [frozen] vs. 11.8% [fresh], aRR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94–1.41).

The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) database from 2014 until 2015 was used to identify all cycles that resulted in a fresh ET during this timeframe. Data were collected through voluntary submission, verified by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), and reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in compliance with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-493). The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology maintains Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant business associate agreements with reporting clinics. In 2004, after a contract change with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, SART gained access to the SART CORS data system for the purposes of conducting research. In 2015, 93% (464/499) of all ART clinics in the United States submitted data to SART ( 23 ). Of note, 2014 was the first year that data was available in SART CORS on thawed oocytes linked with their subsequent fresh ET. Fresh ETs resulting from embryos created from both fresh and frozen autologous and donor oocytes were included. Cycles involving frozen ETs and donor embryo cycles were all excluded. Demographic data collected included maternal age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, parity, infertility diagnosis, prior in vitro fertilization attempt, use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), use of assisted hatching, and number of embryos transferred. This retrospective cohort study was considered exempt by the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center Institutional Review Board. The primary outcome of the study was live birth would recommend we write out livebirth throughout document vs abbreviating as LB. Live birth was defined as a live-born infant who was delivered at 20 weeks of gestation or greater. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy and birthweight outcomes. Additional pregnancy outcomes included: clinical pregnancy, clinical miscarriage, biochemical pregnancy loss, and multiple gestations. Clinical miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss after the presence of a gestational sac on viability ultrasound. Biochemical pregnancy loss was defined as a pregnancy loss that occurred after a positive pregnancy test but before a viability ultrasound. Birthweight outcomes included low birthweight infants (4,000 g). Demographic and cycle characteristics were compared between groups using Fisher's exact tests and chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Student's t test for continuous variables, as appropriate ( Table 1 ). We then assessed the likelihood of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes according to the transfer of fresh embryos derived from frozen compared with fresh autologous oocytes and the fresh transfer of embryos derived from frozen compared with fresh donor oocytes into intended parent recipients. Generalized linear regression models were used to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate associations between frozen oocytes and clinical and neonatal outcomes relative to fresh oocytes. Models were adjusted for maternal age, BMI, smoking status, parity, infertility diagnosis, number of embryos transferred, and preimplantation genetic testing. These factors were controlled for in both Tables 2 and 3 . The model was not adjusted for ICSI because this was considered an inherent characteristic of frozen oocyte cycles. For women who had multiple cycles and transfers between 2014 and 2015, only their first ET was included. The study sample was limited to singleton pregnancies in an additional sensitivity analysis. Table 1 Demographics of frozen and fresh oocyte cycles, autologous, and donor. Variable Fresh autologous oocyte cycles Frozen autologous oocyte cycles P value Fresh donor oocyte cycles Frozen donor oocyte cycles P value Cycle type, n (%) 139,181 (99.6) 553 (0.4) 11,482 (76.7) 3,490 (23.3) Intended parent age (y), mean ± SD 35 ± 4.7 38.6 ± 5.2 <.0001 41.2 ± 5.6 41.9 ± 4.8 <.0001 Intended parent age (y), n (%)  <35 65,176 (46.8) 133 (24.1) <.0001 1,505 (13.1) 298 (8.5) 42 7,133 (5.1) 141 (25.5) 5,366 (46.7) 1,834 (52.6) Donor age (y), mean ± SD N/A N/A 26.4 ± 3.7 26 ± 3.2 <.0001 Race/ethnicity, n (%)  Nonhispanic White 56,082 (40.3) 243 (43.9) <.0001 4,266 (37.2) 1,199 (34.4) <.0001  Nonhispanic Black 6,634 (4.8) 17 (3.1) 582 (5.1) 230 (6.6)  Asian 13,598 (9.8) 25 (4.5) 1,050 (9.1) 183 (5.2)  Hispanic 6,986 (5) 15 (2.7) 552 (4.8) 168 (4.8)  Other 1,832 (1.3) 5 (0.9) 300 (2.6) 23 (0.7)  Unknown 54,049 (38.8) 248 (44.8) 4,732 (41.2) 1,687 (48.3) BMI of an intended parent, mean± SD 25.6 ± 5.7 23.9 ± 4.9 <.0001 25.6 ± 5.4 26 ± 5.6 .0001 Smoking status, n (%)  Smoker 4,944 (3.6) 11 (2) <.0001 272 (2.4) 139 (4) <.0001  Nonsmoker 120,756 (86.8) 403 (72.9) 9,357 (81.5) 2,932 (84)  Unknown 13,481 (9.7) 139 (25.1) 1,853 (16.1) 419 (12) Reproductive history, mean ± SD  Prior gravidity 1 ± 1.4 0.7 ± 1.2 <.0001 1.3 ± 1.7 1.4 ± 1.7 .1064  Prior full-term birth 0.7 ± 0.9 0.6 ± 0.8 .1064 0.7 ± 1 0.7 ± 1 .5068  Prior preterm birth 0.1 ± 0.3 0.1 ± 0.3 .1083 0.1 ± 0.3 0.1 ± 0.3 .4328  Prior spontaneous abortion 0.9 ± 1.1 0.6 ± 0.9 .0004 1.1 ± 1.3 1.1 ± 1.2 .267 No. of prior ART cycles 1 ± 0.7 1.2 ± 0.6 <.0001 1.1 ± 0.7 1.1 ± 0.4 .0094 Infertility diagnosis, n (%) Male factor 49,323 (35.4) 163 (29.5) .0033 1,641 (14.3) 527 (15.1) .2376  Tubal factor 19,141 (13.8) 25 (4.5) <.0001 657 (5.7) 240 (6.9) .013  Endometriosis 11,885 (8.5) 18 (3.3) <.0001 534 (4.7) 147 (4.2) .2863  Uterine factor 7,517 (5.4) 27 (4.9) .7055 595 (5.2) 227 (6.5) .0034  Polycystic ovary syndrome 21,272 (15.3) 47 (8.5) <.0001 366 (3.2) 100 (2.9) .3731  Diminished ovarian reserve 34,624 (24.9) 194 (35.1) <.0001 8,706 (75.8) 2,921 (83.7) <.0001  Unexplained 20,310 (14.6) 38 (6.9) <.0001 435 (3.8) 159 (4.6) .0475  Other 22,533 (16.2) 205 (37.1) <.0001 2,426 (21.1) 495 (14.2) <.0001 ART factors used, n (%)  Assisted hatching 8,943 (8.7) 59 (17.5) <.0001 660 (7.2) 351 (19.9) <.0001  ICSI 10,8892 (78.2) 533 (96.6) <.0001 9,502 (82.8) 3,447 (98.8) <.0001  PGS/PGT 27,186 (19.5) 96 (17.4) .2162 2,260 (19.7) 86 (2.5) <.0001  No. embryos transferred, mean ± SD 1.8 ± 0.8 1.9 ± 0.9 .0534 1.6 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.5 <.0001  Elective single embryo transfer 22,051 (73.7) 70 (53.8) <.0001 3,243 (91.2) 1,228 (79.7) <.0001 ART = assisted reproductive technology; BMI = body mass index; ICSI = intracytoplasmic sperm injection; N/A = not applicable; No. = number; PGS/PGT = preimplantation genetic screening/preimplantation genetic testing; SD = standard deviation. Table 2 Clinical outcomes for frozen autologous oocytes relative to fresh autologous oocytes. Outcome Fresh autologous oocytes (n = 139,181) Frozen autologous oocytes (n = 553) RR (95% CI) aRR (95% CI) a Pregnancy outcomes Biochemical pregnancy loss 8,016 (5.8) 38 (6.9) 1.19 (0.88, 1.62) 1.28 (0.93, 1.76) Clinical pregnancy loss 15,190 (10.9) 62 (11.2) 1.03 (0.81, 1.3) 1.03 (0.81, 1.31) Clinical pregnancy 43,120 (31) 156 (28.2) 0.91 (0.8, 1.04) 0.91 (0.79, 1.04) Live birth 35,774 (25.7) 132 (23.9) 0.93 (0.8, 1.08) 0.93 (0.79, 1.09) Pregnancy plurality, n (%) Singleton 27,457 (76.8) 110 (83.3) Reference Reference Multiple 8,317 (23.2) 22 (16.7) 0.72 (0.49, 1.05) 0.96 (0.63, 1.46) Birthweight, n (%) Normal birthweight b 29,565 (67.2) 102 (67.1) Reference Reference Low birthweight b 12,480 (28.4) 31 (20.4) 0.79 (0.58, 1.07) 0.92 (0.65, 1.31) High birthweight b 1,961 (4.5) 19 (12.5) 2.52 (1.67, 3.82) 2.67 (1.65, 4.3) Singleton birthweight, n (%) Normal Birthweight b 22,666 (83.1) 80 (72.7) Reference Reference Low birthweight b 2,694 (9.9) 11 (10) 1.14 (0.65, 1.98) 1.13 (0.56, 2.27) High birthweight b 1,926 (7.1) 19 (17.3) 2.45 (1.63, 3.68) 2.77 (1.74, 4.42) aRR = adjusted relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; RR = relative risk ratio. a Models were adjusted for maternal age, body mass index, smoking status, parity, infertility diagnosis (male infertility, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, diminished ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine, unexplained, other), number of embryos transferred, and preimplantation genetic testing. b Low birthweight was defined as 4,000 g. Table 3 Clinical outcomes for frozen-donor oocytes relative to fresh donor oocytes among intended parent recipients. Outcome Fresh donor oocyte and parent recipient (n = 11,482) Frozen-donor oocyte and parent recipient (n = 3,490) RR (95% CI) aRR (95% CI) a Pregnancy outcomes, n (%) Biochemical Pregnancy loss 645 (5.6) 301 (8.6) 1.54 (1.35, 1.75) 1.22 (1.05, 1.43) Clinical miscarriage 1,443 (12.6) 607 (17.4) 1.38 (1.27, 1.51) 1.07 (0.97, 1.19) Clinical pregnancy 5,528 (48.1) 1,780 (51) 1.06 (1.02, 1.1) 0.83 (0.8, 0.87) Live birth 4,703 (41) 1,465 (42) 1.02 (0.98, 1.07) 0.81 (0.77, 0.85) Pregnancy plurality, n (%) Singleton 3,397 (72.2) 1,158 (79) Reference Reference Multiple 1,306 (27.8) 307 (21) 0.75 (0.68, 0.84) 0.92 (0.81, 1.03) Birthweight, n (%) Normal birthweight b 3,738 (62.5) 1,130 (64.4) Reference Reference Low birthweight b 1,966 (32.9) 518 (29.5) 0.91 (0.84, 0.99) 1.03 (0.94, 1.12) High birthweight b 274 (4.6) 108 (6.2) 1.28 (1.03, 1.58) 1.42 (1.1, 1.83) Singleton birthweight, n (%) Normal birthweight b 2,715 (80.4) 892 (78) Reference Reference Low birthweight b 398 (11.8) 144 (12.6) 1.09 (0.91, 1.3) 1.15 (0.94, 1.41) High birthweight b 264 (7.8) 108 (9.4) 1.22 (0.99, 1.51) 1.38 (1.07, 1.77) aRR = adjusted relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; RR = relative risk ratio. a Models were adjusted for maternal age, body mass index, smoking status, parity, infertility diagnosis (male infertility, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, diminished ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine, unexplained, and other), number of embryos transferred, and preimplantation genetic testing. b Low birthweight was defined as 4,000 g . Demographics of frozen and fresh oocyte cycles, autologous, and donor. ART = assisted reproductive technology; BMI = body mass index; ICSI = intracytoplasmic sperm injection; N/A = not applicable; No. = number; PGS/PGT = preimplantation genetic screening/preimplantation genetic testing; SD = standard deviation. Clinical outcomes for frozen autologous oocytes relative to fresh autologous oocytes. aRR = adjusted relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; RR = relative risk ratio. Models were adjusted for maternal age, body mass index, smoking status, parity, infertility diagnosis (male infertility, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, diminished ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine, unexplained, other), number of embryos transferred, and preimplantation genetic testing. Low birthweight was defined as 4,000 g. Clinical outcomes for frozen-donor oocytes relative to fresh donor oocytes among intended parent recipients. aRR = adjusted relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; RR = relative risk ratio. Models were adjusted for maternal age, body mass index, smoking status, parity, infertility diagnosis (male infertility, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, diminished ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine, unexplained, and other), number of embryos transferred, and preimplantation genetic testing. Low birthweight was defined as 4,000 g .

To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date, analyzing clinical and neonatal outcomes between frozen and fresh oocytes after fresh ET, in both donor and autologous oocyte cycles. In our study, notable differences in clinical and neonatal outcomes were observed. Specifically, our study found a higher incidence of high-birthweight infants after the use of frozen relative to fresh oocytes in both autologous and donor cycles. Additionally, we observed a decrease in LB and clinical pregnancy and an increase in biochemical pregnancy loss after the use of frozen oocytes in donors, but not autologous cycles. The finding of a higher incidence of high-birthweight infants after fresh transfer of embryos created from frozen compared with fresh autologous oocytes is consistent with the recent data from both observational studies and randomized controlled clinical trials that suggest a higher incidence of large for gestational age and high-birthweight infants after frozen compared with fresh ET ( 11 , 14 , 15 ). Specifically, recent data suggest that hormonally programmed frozen ETs are associated with a higher rate of large for gestational age and macrosomia compared with natural or stimulated frozen ETs ( 13 ). Therefore, it is possible to attribute at least some of the increase in high birthweight observed in the frozen autologous oocyte group to the uterine hormonal environment. Women who undergo fresh transfer with fresh oocytes have recently had ovarian stimulation to super-ovulate the ovaries in preparation for oocyte retrieval, whereas women who use frozen autologous oocytes by default have a different uterine environment. Their uterus is prepared for frozen ET either by hormonal programming with exogenous estrogen and progesterone (likely the vast majority) or the embryo is transferred in a natural or stimulated ovulation cycle ( 13 , 14 ). Our second analysis, which included transfers of fresh embryos created from fresh or frozen-donor oocytes into intended parent recipients, serves as a control for the endometrial environment, which may have been a confounding factor in the autologous oocyte analysis. Intended parent recipients in donor cycles undergo similar uterine preparation, whether the embryo source used is a fresh or frozen-donor oocyte. In this analysis, our study also reports a higher incidence of high-birthweight infants in pregnancies resulting from frozen-donor oocytes, albeit of a lower magnitude compared with that observed with frozen autologous oocytes. This finding of increased birthweight with frozen-donor oocytes deserves further study. When confirmed in future studies, it is important because it suggests a possible impact of oocyte freezing on subsequent neonatal birth weight that cannot be entirely explained by the endometrial environment alone. Another important finding of our study is that in the donor oocyte analysis, there was a lower proportion of LB among fresh transfers that used frozen-donor oocytes. Our finding is similar to a study recently published by Whynott et al. ( 22 ) that also observed lower LB with frozen-donor oocytes compared with fresh donor oocytes. Our study also noted a decrease in clinical pregnancy as well as a higher proportion of biochemical pregnancy loss in the adjusted analysis among transfers using frozen-donor eggs. Importantly, these same findings were not found in our analysis that compared fresh and frozen autologous oocytes. There are several potential explanations for these findings. First, it should be reassuring that in a large database study, there was no decrease in LB noted among women cryopreserving and using their own oocytes. Second, there are important differences between autologous and donor oocyte cycles that may impact clinical outcomes. Stimulation parameters may differ between donor cycles that are destined for fresh or frozen donation because there is an incentive to get as many eggs as possible from a donation cycle, particularly those in which donor eggs are frozen in “lots” for donor banks ( 24 ). Finally, we cannot rule out that there is an impact of the freezing process itself on the oocyte’s viability potential that we are observing in the donor egg population. Whether vitrification itself has an impact on either the embryo or the egg is not well understood. To investigate potential changes to the embryo after vitrification, researchers have examined embryonic and placental gene expression. Animal studies have reported disorganized changes to embryonic cytoskeletal structure after vitrification ( 25 , 26 ). Additionally, differences in both epigenetic markers and gene expression have been reported between fresh and frozen embryos in both human and animal models ( 18 , 19 , 20 ). A recent study demonstrated that vitrification and trophectoderm biopsy have cumulative effects on embryonic gene expression in multiple critical pathways in a mouse model ( 27 ). Furthermore, several genes along these critical pathways were identified as possible mediators of some of the clinical differences seen after fresh and frozen ET in this study. Given the increasing use and demand for both embryo and oocyte cryopreservation, combined with the observed differences in neonatal outcomes after the transfer of fresh and frozen embryos that have already been noted in clinical studies, further studies examining the effects of vitrification are warranted. This study has many strengths, including the use of a large national registry that allowed analysis of frozen and fresh oocytes in both autologous and donor oocyte cycles. The inclusion of both autologous and donor cycles allows for a systematic assessment of the impact of vitrification on the oocyte in different populations and uterine environments. However, as a retrospective database study, our study does have some inherent limitations. An important limitation is the reliability and type of data that was reported. For example, we were unable to ascertain the number of oocytes that were retrieved between groups. Additionally, we did not assess the cumulative pregnancy rate because only the first ETs were included in our analysis. We intentionally did not include frozen ET cycles because our goal was to isolate the variable of oocyte vitrification, although this can be a subject of future study. Additionally, ICSI was not controlled for in our analysis because it was considered to be an inherent feature of oocyte freezing, which results in a hardened zona pellucida that requires ICSI for fertilization ( 28 , 29 , 30 ). Assisted hatching was not included in our analysis for similar reasons. Finally, we recognized that our sample sizes for frozen oocytes are smaller than fresh, but because of the increased demand and popularity of egg freezing, larger sample sizes of both autologous and donor-frozen eggs should be available in the near future for assessment.

In conclusion, our study’s findings of an increased incidence of high-birthweight infants after frozen oocyte ET in both autologous and donor populations raise important questions about oocyte vitrification that deserve further study and cannot be entirely attributed to differences in the endometrial environment. Additionally, although it is reassuring that no difference in LB was observed between fresh and frozen autologous oocytes, the finding of a decreased likelihood of LB after frozen-donor oocytes compared with fresh donor oocytes is an important finding as more patients seek to use frozen oocytes for donor egg cycles. Future research should be directed toward LB success with the use of frozen-donor oocytes, with the hope that this will provide clinicians with the needed information to provide individualized patient care and counseling as it pertains to their prognosis.

C.A.B. has nothing to disclose. A.P.S. has nothing to disclose. E.D. has nothing to disclose. S.M. has nothing to disclose. R.W. reports funding from the SREI research grant and 10.13039/100012324 University Hospitals/Case Western Reserve R&E Rapid Response COVID Pilot grant; honoraria from Einstein/Montefiore Hospital and Midwest Reproductive Society International; stock options Sermonix Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.