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

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.