Semi-automated versus manual embryo vitrification: inter-operator variability, time-saving, and clinical outcomes

Abstract

Purpose: Does semi-automated vitrification have lower inter-operator variability and better clinical outcomes than manual vitrification?

Methods: Retrospective analyses of 282 patients whose embryos had been cryopreserved, manually with Irvine®-CBS® (MV) or semi-automatically vitrified with the GAVI® method (AV) (from November 2017 to September 2020). Both techniques were performed during the same period by 5 operators. Inter-operator variability was statistically analyzed between operators who performed the vitrification and those who performed the warming process to compare the intact survival rate (% embryos with 100% intact blastomeres) and the positive survival rate (at least 50% intact blastomeres). Additionally, the complete vitrification time was assessed for the 2 techniques according to the number of vitrified embryos.

Results: Manual vitrification involved warming 338 embryos in 266 cycles for 181 couples compared to 212 embryos in 162 AV cycles for 101 patients. The positive survival rate was higher (p < 0.05) after MV (96%; 323/338) than after AV (90%; 191/212). The intact survival rate (86 vs 84%) and the clinical pregnancy rate (27 vs 22%) were not significantly different between MV and AV. Regarding the inter-operator variability, no significant difference in positive and intact survival rate was evident between the 5 technicians, neither by vitrification nor by warming steps with MV and AV. Concerning time-saving, the MV technique proved to be quicker than AV (minus 11 ± 9 min).

Conclusions: Manual vitrification exhibited favorable total survival rates and was more time efficient, while both MV and AV cooling and warming treatments showed little operator variability.

Keywords: Automation; Embryo; Quality management; Survival rate; Variability; Vitrification.