A 10-year follow-up of reproductive outcomes in women attempting motherhood after elective oocyte cryopreservation
Authors: Loreti S , Darici E , Nekkebroeck J , Drakopoulos P , Van Landuyt L , De Munck N , Tournaye H , De Vos M 
Published: December 2023

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION
Which reproductive treatment outcomes are observed in women who underwent elective oocyte cryopreservation (EOC) and who returned to the clinic with a desire for a child?

SUMMARY ANSWER
Whether to warm oocytes or to first use fresh own oocytes for ART depends on age upon returning, but both strategies result in favorable reproductive outcomes.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Most affluent countries have observed a trend toward postponement of childbearing, and EOC is increasingly used based on the assumption that oocytes cryopreserved at a younger age may extend a woman’s reproductive lifespan and mitigate her age-related fertility decline. Although most follow-up studies after EOC have focused on women who requested oocyte warming, a substantial proportion of women who do not conceive naturally will embark on fertility treatment without using their cryopreserved oocytes. Reports on reproductive outcomes in past EOC users are scarce, and the lack of reproductive treatment algorithms in this group of women hampers counseling toward the most efficient clinical strategy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
This retrospective observational single-center study encompasses 843 women who had elective oocyte vitrification between 2009 and 2019 at our fertility clinic. Women who underwent fertility preservation for medical or oncological reasons were excluded. This study describes the outcomes of the diverse reproductive treatment strategies performed until May 2022 in women returning to our clinic to attempt motherhood.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Using descriptive statistics, patient characteristics and data of ovarian stimulation (OS) of EOC cycles were analyzed, as well as data related to OS and laboratory data of ART in women who pursued fertility treatment with and/or without using their cryopreserved oocytes. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR) per patient after oocyte warming and after ART using fresh oocytes. Secondary outcomes were return rate, utilization rate of the cryopreserved oocytes, laboratory outcomes upon return, and LBR per embryo transfer. A multivariable regression model was developed to identify factors associated with the decision to thaw oocytes as the primary strategy and factors associated with ongoing pregnancy upon return to the clinic.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
A total of 1353 EOC cycles (mean ± SD, 1.6 ± 0.9 per patient) were performed. At the time of EOC, the mean age was 36.5 ± 2.8 years, mean anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was 2.3 ± 2.0 ng/ml, and 174 (20.6%) women had a partner. On average, 13.9 ± 9.2 mature oocytes were cryopreserved. Two hundred thirty-one (27.4%) women returned to the clinic, an average of 39.9 ± 23.4 months after EOC. Upon returning, their mean age was 40.4 ± 3.1 years, mean AMH was 1.5 ± 1.5 ng/ml, and 158/231 (68.3%) patients had a partner. As a primary approach, 110/231 (47.6%) past EOC users embarked on oocyte warming, 50/231 (21.6%) had intrauterine insemination, and 71/231 (30.7%) had ART using fresh own oocytes. Cumulative LBR (CLBR) was 45.9% (106/231) notwithstanding a miscarriage rate (MR) of 30.7% (51/166) in the entire cohort. In total, 141 women performed oocyte warming at some stage in their treatment trajectory. A subset of 90/231 (39.0%) patients exclusively had oocyte warming (41.6 ± 3.0 years, with 10.0 ± 5.2 oocytes warmed per patient). 52/231 (22.5%) patients exclusively had ART using fresh own oocytes (mean age of 39.0 ± 2.8 years, with 9.9 ± 7.4 mature oocytes retrieved per patient). CLBR was 37/90 (41.1%) in the oocyte warming-only group and 25/52 (48.1%) in the OS-only group. MR/transfer was 25.0% and 29.3% in the oocyte warming-only group and the OS-only group, respectively.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
Both sample size and the retrospective design are limitations of this study. The decision to embark on a specific reproductive treatment strategy was based on patient preference, after counseling on their treatment options. This precludes direct comparison of the efficiency of reproductive treatment options in past EOC users in this study.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Reporting on clinical outcomes of women who underwent EOC and returned to the clinic to embark on divergent reproductive treatment strategies is mandatory to establish guidelines for best clinical practice in this growing patient population.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.