Equivalent clinical outcome after vitrified‐thawed blastocyst transfer using semi‐automated embryo vitrification system compared with manual vitrification method

Purpose This study compared Gavi®, an automated system for the equilibration and dehydration steps of vitrification, and a manual vitrification procedure in terms of effects on clinical outcomes. Methods The authors retrospectively compared survival rate, and clinical and perinatal outcomes after vi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Reproductive medicine and biology 2020-04, Vol.19 (2), p.164-170
Main Authors: Miwa, Atsuko, Noguchi, Yukiko, Hosoya, Kayo, Mori, Yuusuke, Sato, Takuma, Kasahara, Yuta, Hidaka, Miwa, Hayashi, Hiroshi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
automated vitrification
Automation
Birth weight
blastocyst
Cesarean section
Clinical trials
Clinics
Comparative analysis
Cryopreservation
Dehydration
Embryology
Embryonic development
Embryos
Gavi
Gestational age
Human error
Methods
Miscarriage
Nitrogen
Original
Pregnancy
Reproductive technology
Solvents
Survival
Ultrasonic imaging
Vitrification
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose This study compared Gavi®, an automated system for the equilibration and dehydration steps of vitrification, and a manual vitrification procedure in terms of effects on clinical outcomes. Methods The authors retrospectively compared survival rate, and clinical and perinatal outcomes after vitrified‐thawed single blastocyst transfer between Gavi® (G method) in 398 cases and Cryotop® (C method) in 208 cases. Results With C and G methods, survival rates were 98.6% (208/211) and 99.3% (398/401), total pregnancy rates were 34.3% (72/208) and 33.4% (133/398), and total miscarriage rates were 22.2% (16/72) and 24.8% (33/133), respectively. Among women  .05 each). Conclusions Gavi® showed comparable clinical outcomes to the manual vitrification method and can be considered an alternative vitrification procedure in assisted reproductive technology.
ISSN:1445-5781
1447-0578
DOI:10.1002/rmb2.12320