%0 Journal Article
%T Oocyte donation: not all oocyte cryobanks are the same.
%A Gianaroli L
%A Ferraretti AP
%A Perruzza D
%A Terzuoli G
%A Azzena S
%A Crippa A
%A Dworakowska A
%A Tabanelli C
%A Magli MC
%J Reprod Biomed Online
%V 44
%N 2
%D 02 2022
%M 35031239
%F 4.567
%R 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.10.015
%X Is the efficacy of imported vitrified oocyte donation affected by the cryobank of origin?<BR>Longitudinal cohort study, including 249 completed oocyte warming cycles from 200 recipients (January 2016-July 2020). No severe male factor was included. Vitrified oocytes were provided by three Spanish cryobanks. Primary outcome was cumulative live birth delivery rate (CLBR) per completed oocyte warming cycle.<BR>After warming 1535 oocytes, 1244 survived (81.0%) and 945 fertilized (76.0%); embryo utilization rate was 65.3%. The overall CLBR per completed cycle was 47.0% but was lower in cryobank 1 (31.2%) versus cryobank 2 (56.0%, P = 0.0010) and cryobank 3 (50.8%, P = 0.0241). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified survival of four or more oocytes as the strongest predictor for delivery (P = 0.0282). Only 202 out of 249 oocyte warming cycles had four or more survived oocytes in a proportion that was significantly lower in cryobank 1 versus cryobank 2 (70.1% versus 89.0%, P = 0.0020); comparison with cryobank 3 (81.0%) was not significant. In the 202 oocyte warming cycles, CLBR in cryobank 1 (37.0%) was lower versus cryobank 2 (58.8%, P = 0.0115) and cryobank 3 (60.8%, P = 0.0019), suggesting a reduced viability in oocytes from cryobank 1 that survived warming.<BR>Differences were found in the efficacy of imported vitrified oocytes in relation to the cryobank of origin. Each centre needs to evaluate the results internally when starting a collaboration with an oocyte cryobank to establish the necessary measures to maximize treatment efficacy.