ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2025
Ultra-Fast Warming Procedure of Vitrified Blastocysts Results in Maintained Embryology and Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-omics and developmental comparison of direct and conventional warming methods in vitrified human and mouse cleavage-stage embryos.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of a one-step warming protocol of vitrified blastocyst stage embryos.F&S reports · 2026Article
- A one-step short rehydration protocol for warming is associated with live birth outcomes in frozen blastocyst transfers: a retrospective cohort study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Article
- Validation and clinical study of single-step vitrification combined with single-step warming of human blastocysts.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Oocyte and Embryo Vitrification in Horses.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vitrification has revolutionized embryo cryopreservation, but represents a significant workload in the IVF lab. We evaluated here an ultrafast blastocyst warming procedure in order to improve workflow while maintaining clinical outcome. We first evaluated the expression of main markers of lineage specification in a subset of blastocysts donated to research warmed with ultrafast protocol. We then performed a prospective pseudo-randomized pilot study comparing blastocyst survival, reexpansion and live birth rates between standard (3 steps, 15 min), and ultrafast warming protocol (1 step, 2 min). Finally, survival, reexpansion and live birth rates (LBR) obtained with ultrafast warming protocol were prospectively collected during 3 months and compared with previous indicators. Immunofluorescence experiments showed that staining and spatial organization of cell fate markers were conserved with ultrafast protocol. Survival, reexpansion and LBR were strictly comparable between standard (n = 47 cycles) and ultrafast (n = 39 cycles) groups in the pilot study (100 vs 100%, 80 vs 76% and 29.8 vs 30.7% in standard and simplified groups respectively). Survival, expansion and LBR obtained with the ultrafast warming protocol over the next 3-month period (321 cycles, 336 embryos) were comparable with those obtained with the standard protocol throughout the 6 months (547 FBT cycles, 578 embryos) preceding shifting protocol (97.6 and 29.6% vs 97.8 and 28.3% respectively, p > 0.05 for both). In conclusion, using an ultrafast blastocyst warming procedure results in similar embryology and clinical outcomes compared with standard protocol, but significantly shortens the technical procedure, ultimately improving the overall lab's workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.