Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical outcome of planned oocyte cryopreservation at advanced age

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To report outcome of planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC) in the first 8 years of this treatment in our center.

Methods

A retrospective study in a university-affiliated medical center.

Results

A total of 446 women underwent POC during 2011–2018. Fifty-seven (13%) women presented to use these oocytes during the study period (until June 2021). POC was performed at a mean age of 37.9 ± 2.0 (range 33–41). Age at thawing was 43.3 ± 2.1 (range 38–49). A total of 34 (60%) women transferred their oocytes for thawing at other units. Oocyte survival after thawing was significantly higher at our center than following shipping to ancillary sites (78 vs. 63%, p = 0.047). Forty-nine women completed their treatment, either depleting their cryopreserved oocytes without conceiving (36) or attaining a live birth (13)—27% live birth rate per woman. Only one of eleven women who cryopreserved oocytes aged 40 and older had a live birth using thawed oocytes.

Conclusion

Women should be advised to complete planned oocyte cryopreservation before age 40, given low success rates in women who underwent cryopreservation at advanced reproductive age. In this study, oocyte shipping was associated with lower survival rate. These findings may be relevant for women considering POC and utilization of cryopreserved oocytes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Planned oocyte cryopreservation for women seeking to preserve future reproductive potential: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:1022–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cobo A, Remohí J, Chang C-C, Nagy ZP. Oocyte cryopreservation for donor egg banking. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:341–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.05.014.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dolmans M-M, Donnez J. Fertility preservation in women for medical and social reasons: oocytes vs ovarian tissue. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;70:63–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cobo A, Coello A, de Los Santos MJ, Giles J, Pellicer A, Remohí J, García-Velasco JA. Number needed to freeze: cumulative live birth rate after fertility preservation in women with endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42:725–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.12.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Iussig B, Maggiulli R, Fabozzi G, Bertelle S, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, et al. A brief history of oocyte cryopreservation: arguments and facts. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98:550–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmw038.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60025-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dondorp W, de Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1231–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des029.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnston M, Richings NM, Leung A, Sakkas D, Catt S. A major increase in oocyte cryopreservation cycles in the USA, Australia and New Zealand since 2010 is highlighted by younger women but a need for standardized data collection. Hum Reprod. 2021;36:624–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa320.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. HFEA. Egg freezing in fertility treatment. Trends and figures: 2010–2016. Human fertilisation and embryology authority. 2018. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2656/egg-freezing-in-fertility-treatment-trends-and-figures-2010-2016-final.pdf

  11. Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Smith M, Noyes N. What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility? Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1343–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Balkenende EM, Dahhan T, van der Veen F, Repping S, Goddijn M. Reproductive outcomes after oocyte banking for fertility preservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:425–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gürtin ZB, Morgan L, O’Rourke D, Wang J, Ahuja K. For whom the egg thaws: insights from an analysis of 10 years of frozen egg thaw data from two UK clinics, 2008–2017. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1069–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01429-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hammarberg K, Kirkman M, Pritchard N, Hickey M, Peate M, McBain J, et al. Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserved oocytes for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:575–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wennberg A-L, Schildauer K, Brännström M. Elective oocyte freezing for nonmedical reasons: a 6-year report on utilization and in vitro fertilization results from a Swedish center. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98:1429–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wafi A, Nekkebroeck J, Blockeel C, de Munck N, Tournaye H, de Vos M. A follow-up survey on the reproductive intentions and experiences of women undergoing planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;40:207–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yee S, Goodman CV, Fu V, Lipton NJ, Librach CL. Parenthood desire, childbearing plans and oocyte utilization among women who previously underwent planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones BP, Kasaven L, L’Heveder A, Jalmbrant M, Green J, Makki M, et al. Perceptions, outcomes, and regret following social egg freezing in the UK; a cross-sectional survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99:324–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Leung AQ, Baker K, Vaughan D, Shah JS, Korkidakis A, Ryley DA, et al. Clinical outcomes and utilization from over a decade of planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:671–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cobo A, García-Velasco J, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Elective and onco-fertility preservation: factors related to IVF outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:2222–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey321.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsafrir A, Holzer H, Miron-Shatz T, Eldar-Geva T, Gal M, Ben-Ami I, et al. ‘Why have women not returned to use their frozen oocytes?’: a 5-year follow-up of women after planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:1137–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.026.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Blakemore JK, Grifo JA, DeVore SM, Hodes-Wertz B, Berkeley AS. Planned oocyte cryopreservation-10-15-year follow-up: return rates and cycle outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1511–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Kato O, Leibo SP. Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:300–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60837-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment. proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. OECD. Fertility rates. https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

  26. DeVore S, Noyes N, Grifo JA, Berkeley AS, Licciardi F, Goldman KN. Achieving the “ideal” family size at advanced reproductive ages through oocyte cryopreservation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:277–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1303-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McDonald CA, Valluzo L, Chuang L, Poleshchuk F, Copperman AB, Barritt J. Nitrogen vapor shipment of vitrified oocytes: time for caution. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2628–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Parmegiani L. Oocyte vitrification/storage/handling/transportation/warming, effect on survival and clinical results in donation programmes. CCE. 2017;4:34. https://doi.org/10.11138/CCE/2017.4.2.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. The Israeli National IVF Registry. 2019 Annual Report. file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/The%20Israeli%20National%20IVF%20Registry%20final%20Report%2022102019.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2022.

  30. Smith ADAC, Tilling K, Nelson SM, Lawlor DA. Live-birth rate associated with repeat in vitro fertilization treatment cycles. JAMA. 2015;314:2654–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.17296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lebovitz O, Haas J, James KE, Seidman DS, Orvieto R, Hourvitz A. The expected cumulative incidence of live birth for patients starting IVF treatment at age 41 years or older. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:533–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Raz N, Shalev A, Horowitz E, Weissman A, Mizrachi Y, Ganer Herman H, Raziel A. Cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates through assisted reproduction in women 44–45 years of age: is there any hope? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:441–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1094-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Shmu’el Bait St 12, 9103102, Jerusalem, Israel

    Avi Tsafrir, Ido Ben-Ami, Talia Eldar-Geva, Michael Gal, Nava Dekel, Hadassah Levi, Oshrat Schonberger, Naama Srebnik & Jordana Hyman

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Avi Tsafrir, Ido Ben-Ami, Talia Eldar-Geva, Michael Gal, Naama Srebnik & Jordana Hyman

  3. IVF Unit, Laniado Medical Center and the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine-Technion, Netanya, Israel

    Amir Weintraub

  4. Clalit Health Services, Fertility clinic, Modi’in Illit, Israel

    Doron Goldberg

Authors
  1. Avi Tsafrir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ido Ben-Ami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Talia Eldar-Geva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Gal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nava Dekel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hadassah Levi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Oshrat Schonberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Naama Srebnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Amir Weintraub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Doron Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jordana Hyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avi Tsafrir.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 13.4 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 13.2 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsafrir, A., Ben-Ami, I., Eldar-Geva, T. et al. Clinical outcome of planned oocyte cryopreservation at advanced age. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 2625–2633 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02633-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02633-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation