A comparative analysis of the clinical pregnancy and perinatal outcomes between oocyte vitrification and embryo vitrification based on the propensity score matching method.

Abstract

This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of oocyte vitrification by comparing the clinical pregnancy and perinatal outcomes between transfer cycles of vitrified oocytes and those of vitrified embryos. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of patients who underwent cleavage-stage embryo transfer at the Department of Reproductive Medicine between January 2011 and June 2021. Seventy-seven transfer cycles of fresh cleavage-stage embryos developed from vitrified-thawed oocytes (oocyte vitrification group) and 2170 transfer cycles of vitrified-thawed cleavage-stage embryos developed from fresh oocytes (embryo vitrification group) were included. Further, 293 cases were selected from the embryo vitrification group after applying propensity score matching at 1:4. The primary outcomes were miscarriage rate, live birth rate, and neonatal birth weight. No statistically significant differences were observed in the baseline data, pregnancy, perinatal outcomes, or neonatal outcomes for either singleton or twin births between the two groups after matching. Backwards stepwise regression was used to analyze the length of gestation. The age of female participants (β = - 0.410, 95% CI = - 1.339 ~ - 0.620, P < 0.001) had a statistically significant effect. Oocyte vitrification results in similar clinical pregnancy and perinatal outcomes as does embryo vitrification; hence, it is a relatively safe assisted reproductive technique.