Try a new search

Format these results:

Searched for:

in-biosketch:true

person:grifoj01

Total Results:

473


Long-term cryopreservation of human oocytes does not increase embryonic aneuploidy

Goldman, Kara N; Kramer, Yael; Hodes-Wertz, Brooke; Noyes, Nicole; McCaffrey, Caroline; Grifo, Jamie A
OBJECTIVE: To determine if long-term cryopreservation of human oocytes affects oocyte developmental competence, blastocyst euploidy, or live-birth rates. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University-based fertility center. PATIENT(S): A total of 33 patients with cryopreserved oocytes underwent oocyte thaw, blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy, and 24-chromosome preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with array comparative genomic hybridization between December 2011 and July 2014; subjects were compared with 2:1 age-matched controls with fresh oocytes whose embryos underwent trophectoderm biopsy and PGS during the same period. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Rates of fertilization, blastulation, euploidy, implantation, and live birth. RESULT(S): Thirty-three patients (mean age 36.2 +/- 3.8 y) thawed 475 oocytes that had been cryopreserved for a median of 3.5 years. Compared with 66 age-matched controls who underwent in vitro fertilization and PGS with fresh oocytes, embryos derived from cryopreserved oocytes demonstrated compromised blastocyst formation (54.5% vs. 66.2%) despite no impairment in fertilization (72.8% vs. 73.2%). Results showed no difference in the number of euploid blastocysts (1.7 +/- 1.9 vs. 2 +/- 2.5), percentage of euploid blastocysts (44.5% vs. 47.6%), rate of implantation (65% vs. 65%), or rate of live birth and ongoing pregnancy (62.5% vs. 55%) after 24-chromosome PGS with cryopreserved or fresh oocytes. CONCLUSION(S): Embryos derived from cryopreserved oocytes demonstrate impaired blastulation but equivalent rates of euploidy, implantation, and live birth compared with blastocysts derived from fresh oocytes, supporting the safety and efficacy of oocyte cryopreservation.
PMID: 25542819
ISSN: 0015-0282
CID: 1419722

A comparison of pregnancy outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers: does day of embryo transfer really make a difference?

Maxwell, Susan M; Melzer-Ross, Katherine; McCulloh, David H; Grifo, James A
PURPOSE: To determine if day of embryo transfer (ET) affects gestational age (GA) and/or birth weight (BW) at a single university fertility center that primarily performs day 5/6 ET. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 2392 singleton live births resulting from IVF/ICSI at a single large university fertility center from 2003 to 2012. Patients were stratified by day 3 or day 5/6 ET. Outcome variables included patient age, gravidity, prior miscarriages, prior assisted reproduction technology cycles, number of embryos transferred, number of single ET, infertility diagnosis, neonatal sex, GA at birth, and BW. Subanalyses were performed on subgroups of preterm infants. A comparison was made between the study data and the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART) published data. RESULTS: There was no difference in GA at birth (39 +/- 2.1 weeks for day 3 ET, 39 +/- 1.9 weeks for day 5/6 ET) or BW between ET groups (3308 +/- 568 g for day 3 ET, 3268 +/- 543 g for day 5/6 ET). There was also no difference in the number of preterm deliveries (8.5 % for day 3 ET vs. 10.8 % for day 5/6 ET). The day 5/6 ET study data had significantly fewer pre-term deliveries than the SART day 5/6 ET data. CONCLUSION: In contrast to published SART data, GA and BW were not influenced by day of ET. Data may be more uniform at a single institution. Day 5/6 ET continues to offer improved pregnancy rates without compromising birth outcomes.
PMCID:4354181
PMID: 25561156
ISSN: 1058-0468
CID: 1428902

Do Time Lapse Morphokinetic (TLM) Parameters Distinguish between Good Versus Poor Prognosis Embryos of Known Ploidy Status? [Meeting Abstract]

Kofinas, Jason D; Tiegs, Ashley; Kramer, Yael G; McCulloh, David H; Grifo, James A
ISI:000353843400051
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 1598472

BIOPSY ON DAY 3 LEADS TO DELAY IN IMPLANTATION. [Meeting Abstract]

McCulloh, DH; McCaffrey, C; Grifo, J
ISI:000380018900773
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 2220102

ICE ICE BABIES: PUSHING THE ART LIMIT THROUGH THE COMBINED TECHNOLOGIES OF OOCYTE CRYOPRESERVATION (OC), TROPHECTODERM BIOPSY (TEBX) AND PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC SCREENING (PGS) [Meeting Abstract]

Noyes, N; Lee, H; Druckenmiller, S; Labella, P; Seta, N; Ampeloquio, E; Grifo, J
ISI:000380018900739
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 2220312

PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS (PGD) FOR SINGLE GENE DEFECTS (SGD): THE SIGNIFICANT VALUE OF CONCURRENT ANEUPLOIDY SCREENING [Meeting Abstract]

Nazem, TG; Goldman, KN; Berkeley, AS; Grifo, J
ISI:000380018900197
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 2220292

THE BIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL IMPACT OF MITOCHONDRIAL GENOME VARIATION IN HUMAN EMBRYOS [Meeting Abstract]

Fragouli, E; Cohen, J; Munne, S; Grifo, J; McCaffrey, C; Wells, D
ISI:000380018900091
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 2220272

PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC SCREENING IS COST EFFECTIVE IN COST PER DELIVERY COMPARED TO ROUTINE IN VITRO FERTILIZATION [Meeting Abstract]

Hodes-Wertz, B; McCulloh, DH; Grifo, J
ISI:000380018900753
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 2220092

BLASTOCYSTS NEEDED TO TRANSFER AT LEAST ONE EUPLOID EMBRYO: DATA FROM 10,852 PRE-IMPLANTATION GENETIC SCREENING (PGS) CYCLES [Meeting Abstract]

Munne, S; Ribustello, L; Kolb, B; Haddad, G; Grifo, JA; Acacio, B; Nagy, Z; Zhang, J; Hesla, J; Kiltz, RJ
ISI:000380018900035
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 2220262

DOES THE DEGREE OF EXPANSION AT TIME OF FROZEN EMBRYO TRANSFER (FET) AFFECT OUTCOMES OF SINGLE THAWED EUPLOID EMBRYO TRANSFERS (STEET)? [Meeting Abstract]

Sachdev, NM; McCulloh, DH; Grifo, J
ISI:000380018900909
ISSN: 1556-5653
CID: 2220132