Table 1.
Vitrification of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos using open and closed carriers
| Cleavage Stage Vitrification | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carrier |
Total embryos (n) |
Recovery (%) |
Survival (%) |
Blastocyst formation after 48 hour culture (%) |
Total blastomeres (mean ± SD) |
% DNA Damage (mean ± SD) |
| Cryoloop | 60 | 100 | 100 | 95 | 81.9 ± 14.0 | 1.85 ± 2.05 |
| HSV | 52 | 100 | 100 | 94 | 82.5 ± 15.6 | 2.06 ± 1.50 |
| Cryotip | 67 | 85* | 100 | 98 | 78.6 ± 17.9 | 2.12 ± 2.04 |
| Blastocyst Stage Vitrification | ||||||
| Carrier |
Total embryos (n) |
Recovery (%) |
Survival (%) |
Re-expansion (%) |
Total blastomeres (mean ± SD) |
% DNA Damage ** (mean ± SD) |
| Cryoloop | 44 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 86.4 ± 25.8 | 4.36 ± 2.72 |
| HSV | 55 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 85.9 ± 23.7 | 3.34 ± 2.79 |
| Cryotip | 52 | 75 * | 79 | 79 | 88.0 ± 19.2 | 3.41 ± 2.66 |
* Significantly lower recovery than with other carriers. P = 0.0001
** Percent DNA damage was higher in embryos vitrified at the blastocyst versus
cleavage stage (P < 0.0001), regardless of the type of carrier