Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2019 Aug;36(8):1555-1560.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01465-2. Epub 2019 May 27.

The main will of the patients of a private Italian IVF clinic for their aneuploid/affected blastocysts would be donation to research: a currently forbidden choice

Federica Faustini  1 , Marina Forte  2 , Antonio Capalbo  3 , Danilo Cimadomo  2 , Filippo Maria Ubaldi  2 , Laura Rienzi  2
Affiliations
Observational Study

The main will of the patients of a private Italian IVF clinic for their aneuploid/affected blastocysts would be donation to research: a currently forbidden choice

Federica Faustini et al. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: Surplus cryopreserved affected/aneuploid blastocysts may be obtained after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). These embryos are considered not suitable for transfer and may be discarded. Currently, in Italy, an embryo disposition decision (EDD) is not allowed and the frozen/vitrified blastocysts (even if affected/aneuploid) should be kept cryopreserved indefinitely. In this peculiar clinical, social, and legislative scenario, we aimed at assessing the attitudes of the patients towards the fate of these embryos, in case the local regulation would be changed and allow an EDD regarding the surplus affected/aneuploid embryos obtained after PGT.

Methods: A questionnaire with multiple answers was submitted to 832 patients who obtained affected/aneuploid embryos during a PGT cycle at our private IVF center. They were asked to choose between three putative options with related reasons: everlasting cryopreservation (only option currently available); discard or donate them to research.

Results: Overall, 149 patients (18%; 85 women and 64 men) answered the questionnaire. Among them, 84% (n = 126) would choose to donate their affected/aneuploid blastocysts to research, 9% (n = 13) would discard them and only 7% (n = 10) would keep them cryopreserved indefinitely.

Conclusions: Donation of the affected/aneuploid blastocysts is the option chosen from most of the respondents (84%; 15% of the eligible patients). These patients are motivated from the altruistic will of incentivating the progress in IVF and/or stem cell research and supporting future couples to limit/solve their infertility/health issues.

Keywords: Affected embryos; Donation; Embryo disposition decision; Preimplantation genetic testing; Surplus embryos.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Summary of the responses of the patients invited to fill the questionnaire dealing with a putative embryo disposition decision (EDD) concerning their affected/aneuploid cryopreserved embryos in case the Italian Law would allow it (a), with related reason(s) (b)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of the putative embryo disposition decisions (EDDs) of the respondents according to their age. The logistic regression analysis highlighted that only the age of the patients corrected for their gender was correlated with a putative choice to “leave the embryos cryopreserved” in case the Italian Law would allow a free EDD (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74–0.98; p value 0.03). Here, the blue dots represent that choice (W stands for “Woman,” and M stands for the “Man”) distributed according to the patients and their age
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(2):139–155. - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Lacey S. Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(6):1661–1669. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh831. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Namey E, Tulsky JA, Cook-Deegan R, Sugarman J, et al. Factors that affect infertility patients’ decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(6):1623–1630. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.11.056. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Voils C, Namey E, Alexander C, Bankowski B, Cook-Deegan R, Dodson WC, Gates E, Jungheim ES, McGovern P, Myers ER, Osborn B, Schlaff W, Sugarman J, Tulsky JA, Walmer D, Faden RR, Wallach E. Fertility patients' views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):499–509. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.015. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Newton CR, Fisher J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Hughes L, Isacsson D. Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(12):3124–3128. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem287. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types