$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Vitrification is the single most impactful assisted reproductive technology in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) industry since the development of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Today, blastocysts are cryopreserved without the loss in embryo viability previously associated with conventional slow-freezing methods1. With reliable post-warming embryo survival, the infertility industry is transforming into the preferred use of cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles, which yield similar or higher pregnancy outcomes than traditional fresh embryo transfer. In association with blastocyst biopsy and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), vitrification has become a vital clinical tool to optimize healthy live birth outcomes via euploid single embryo transfer2,3.
Murine embryo vitrification was developed in the mid-1980s4,5 and adapted to animal agriculture by 19906. Based on the premise that vitrification solutions form a metastable glasseous state, free of damaging ice crystal formation, it has proven to more efficiently preserve the complete cellular integrity of embryos. Interestingly, the promising acceptance of vitrification into human embryology did not begin to be realized until the 21st century. Early publications promoting the use of vitrification coincided with the development of unique "open" system devices7,8,9. However, the adoption of vitrification into clinical practice was slow, as it came at a time when improvements in slow blastocyst freezing were also occurring. Successful conventional slow-rate freezing, in addition to vitrification, were aligned with improvements in embryo culture systems, as well as with the incorporation of blastocoele-collapsing approaches, which enhanced both the overall survival of trophectoderm and, subsequently, implantation10.
In the last decade, vitrification technology has rapidly supplanted conventional freezing practices. To a great extent, this was due to the development of specialized vitrification devices. Some of these devices have handicapped the overall safety, efficiency and effectiveness of clinical vitrification by introducing inherent design flaws to devices used in the IVF industry11. Indeed, the nuances of different devices introduce significant technical variation between programs, commonly referred to as "technical signatures"12. Thus, scientific journals, like the Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE), can serve as a valuable resource for demonstrating technical details, which will help to reduce outcome variation. Another ongoing problem is that some embryologists continue to be misinformed, even today, based on claims that the "ultra-rapid cooling of embryos or oocytes in an 'open vitrification system' (i.e., direct embryo contact with liquid nitrogen (LN2)) is a prerequisite to optimizing success rates." Clearly, this belief is inaccurate, based on the proven success of aseptic closed systems13,14,15.
Based on the cryobiological principles of vitrification, the efficacy of vitrification is more highly dependent upon warming rates than on cooling rates16,17,18. In general, independent of the vitrification device used, the warming rate must exceed the cooling rate to insure high survival rates. High warming rates minimize the opportunity for any ice growth (i.e., the recrystallization of nucleated impurities in cryo-solutions) during the devitrification phase of warming. Granted, the stability of the vitrification solution (i.e., the type and concentration of cryoprotective agents used) may have a confounding effect, but this is addressed in a separate publication11. Considering the cooling-warming rate issues, MicroSecure Vitrification (µS-VTF) was developed in 2008 as an inexpensive, non-commercial, FDA-compliant method that optimized the quality-control aspects of vitrification. It was unique in that it offered tamper-proof, internalized, dual-colored labeling. Furthermore, by loading and storing the embryos directly in the sterile flexipette used for pipetting (i.e., without pipetting to a secondary device surface) and by using ionomeric-resin straws that completely weld seal using an automated sealer, technical variation has been effectively eliminated.
When assessing the completeness of vitrification devices for potential use, there are several quality-control factors that should be taken into account, including: 1) Labeling potential—Can labels be securely adhered? Are they tamperproof? Do they offer dual-color identification potential? Does it require a secondary label, and can the label be easily removed for record-keeping purposes (i.e., patient verification) post-warming? 2) Technical ease—Can embryos be easily loaded into/onto the device in a timely manner and simply identified and tracked post-warming? 3) Procedural simplicity/Repeatability—Does the vitrification method offer simplicity and reliability that easily allows for repeatability, which minimizes the variation between technicians (internal) and programs (external)? 4) LN2 storage capacity—Can the devices be easily and safely handled and identified? Is their storage potential space efficient? Does the device offer security and safety from physical damage or possible contaminants as an aseptic closed system? 5) Recovery potential /Survivability—Is the device design prone to potential problems in the guaranteed recovery of embryos, and will they reliably vitrify and maintain complete cellular integrity post-warming? The latter specific quality concern, the recovery rate, has actually been surprisingly minimized in published reports; this is done by generally hiding the unfavorable outcome (i.e., lost embryo or egg) in typically-good survival rates. Any device prone to inconsistent recovery (<99%) is seriously flawed and constitutes a procedural liability.
Our aseptic, closed µS-VTF method has been strategically developed to account for each quality-control measure. However, after 5 years of superior clinical success and validation14, the procedure had to be modified. The original 0.3-mL embryo straws (possessing a hydrophobic plug) were removed from the IVF industry and replaced with a 0.3-mL semen straw possessing a standard cotton/PVP plug (i.e., relabeled as a semen/embryo straw). This procedural paper outlines the specific steps and strategies needed to implement µS-VTF safely, simply, and effectively. Furthermore, we highlight the modification(s) needed to reliably account for supply limitations, until such time as an alternative ideal straw container is reintroduced back into the clinical laboratory.