P-068 Real-world data shows that frozen-thawed ejaculates used for ICSI with autologous oocytes have lower but clinically negligible cumulative live birth rates compared to fresh samples

Abstract Study question Does frozen-thawed sperm show an impact on success rates in ICSI with autologous oocyte cycles compared to fresh samples? Summary answer The slight decrease cumulative live birth (CLBR) using samples should not overshadow the benefits offered by freezing. What is known already Sperm freezing offers many advantages for cycle planning, logistics, sample safekeeping and patient comfort, becoming a reliable daily procedure infertility clinics worldwide. Nevertheless, there lack of agreement amongst published literature potential effect cycles. present study focused outcomes oocytes and, addition expressing results as classical rates, it assessed CLBR, which accounts contribution all used embryos from same insemination towards achieving birth. design, size, duration This retrospective multicenter observational cohort involving 84,371 procedures patients’ (81,504 ejaculate semen 2,856 frozen samples) January 2008 November 2021. group included real-world data clinical records these patients 654,019 inseminated 117,443 transferred; whereas considered 22,518 injected 3,847 replaced. Participants/materials, setting, methods Classical such pregnancy (LBR) per embryo transfer (ET) were between two groups. Generalized linear models obtain adjusted odds ratios (adjOR) p-values comparisons. CLBR expressed ET, transferred oocyte, plotted Kaplan-Meier curves. These female age Cox regression hazard p-values. Main role chance There statistically significant differences both groups terms ongoing LBR ET. However, after being male BMI, total progressive motile sperm, capacitation, before or at blastocyst stage, use PGT, no longer significant. Once three replaced, was 50.50% (49.91-51.08) group, versus 45.12% (41.77-48.28) group. After five transferred, 68.21% (67.27-69.13) 64.62% (57.81-70.33) respectively (p > 0.001). resulted ratio (adjHR) 1.166 (1.076-1.264). 33.15% (32.69-33.61) 10 49.93% (49.31-50.54) 14. In 28.73% (26.24-31.13) 43.13% (39.78-46.30) adjHR this comparison 1.220 (1.125-1.322). Limitations, reasons caution multivariate analyses aim control best our abilities main limitation study, biases that could be introduced due heterogeneity nature study. Wider implications findings Although had slightly decreased ET analysis. extensive provided shows declines offset offers. Trial registration number Not Applicable