ABSTRACT
COVID-19 has caused radical effects on the daily lives of millions of people. The causal agent of the current pandemic is SARS-CoV-2, a virus that causes symptoms related to the respiratory system, leading to severe complications. In the in vitro fertilization (IVF) universe, there are several protocols for infection control and laboratory safety. Some professional associations have issued guidelines recommending measures involving patient flow and IVF practices. This study presents a review and considerations for the resumption of activities in IVF laboratories and clinics in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the guidelines and statements from professional organizations and societies in reproductive medicine.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , COVID-19 , Fertilization in Vitro , Infection Control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Child, Preschool , Fertilization in Vitro/legislation & jurisprudence , Fertilization in Vitro/methods , Fertilization in Vitro/standards , Humans , Infant , Infection Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Laboratories/legislation & jurisprudence , Laboratories/standards , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The main purpose and research question of the study are to compare the efficacy of high-security closed versus open devices for human oocytes' vitrification. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted. A total of 737 patients attending the Infertility and IVF Unit at S.Orsola University Hospital (Italy) between October 2015 and April 2020 were randomly assigned to two groups. A total of 368 patients were assigned to group 1 (High-Security Vitrification™ - HSV) and 369 to group 2 (Cryotop® open system). Oocyte survival, fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy, implantation, and miscarriage rate were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed on survival rate (70.3% vs. 73.3%), fertilization rate (70.8% vs. 74.9%), cleavage rate (90.6% vs. 90.3%), pregnancy/transfer ratio (32.0% vs. 31.8%), implantation rate (19.7% vs. 19.9%), nor miscarriage rates (22.1% vs. 21.5%) between the two groups. Women's mean age in group 1 (36.18 ± 3.92) and group 2 (35.88 ± 3.88) was not significantly different (P = .297). A total of 4029 oocytes were vitrified (1980 and 2049 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 2564 were warmed (1469 and 1095 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 1386 morphologically eligible oocytes were inseminated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (792 and 594 respectively, P = .304). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the replacement of the open vitrification system by a closed one has no impact on in vitro and in vivo survival, development, pregnancy and implantation rate. Furthermore, to ensure safety, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of the closed device eliminates the potential samples' contamination during vitrification and storage.