Early identification of women with an increased risk for preeclampsia is of utmost importance to minimize adverse perinatal events. Models developed until now (mainly multiparametric algorithms) are thought to be overfitted to the derivation population, which may affect their reliability when applied to other populations. Options allowing adaptation to a variety of populations are needed. The objective of the study was to assess the performance of a first-trimester multivariate Gaussian distribution model including maternal characteristics and biophysical/biochemical parameters for screening of early-onset preeclampsia (delivery <34 weeks of gestation) in a routine care low-risk setting. Early-onset preeclampsia screening was undertaken in a prospective cohort of singleton pregnancies undergoing routine first-trimester screening (8 weeks 0/7 days to 13 weeks 6/7 days of gestation), mainly using a 2-step scheme, at 2 hospitals from March 2014 to September 2017. A multivariate Gaussian distribution model including maternal characteristics (a priori risk), serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A and placental growth factor assessed at 8 weeks 0/7 days to 13 weeks 6/7 days and mean arterial pressure and uterine artery pulsatility index measured at 11.0-13.6 weeks was used. A total of 7908 pregnancies underwent examination, of which 6893 were included in the analysis. Incidence of global preeclampsia was 2.3% (n = 161), while of early-onset preeclampsia was 0.2% (n = 17). The combination of maternal characteristics, biophysical parameters, and placental growth factor showed the best detection rate, which was 59% for a 5% false-positive rate and 94% for a 10% false-positive rate (area under the curve, 0.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.98). The addition of placental growth factor to biophysical markers significantly improved the detection rate from 59% to 94%. The multivariate Gaussian distribution model including maternal factors, early placental growth factor determination (at 8 weeks 0/7 days to 13 weeks 6/7 days), and biophysical variables (mean arterial pressure and uterine artery pulsatility index) at 11 weeks 0/7 days to 13 weeks 6/7 days is a feasible tool for early-onset preeclampsia screening in the routine care setting. Performance of this model should be compared with predicting models based on regression analysis.

How does vitrification affect oocyte viability? Vitrification does not affect oocyte viability in oocyte donation cycles. Oocyte vitrification is performed routinely and successfully in IVF and oocyte donation programs. This is a prospective study performed between June 2009 and February 2012 to compare ongoing pregnancy rates and other indices of viability between fresh and vitrified oocytes. A total of 99 donations with more than 16 oocytes (MII) in which oocytes were allocated both to a synchronous recipient (fresh oocytes) and to an asynchronous recipient (vitrified oocytes) were included. The participants were consenting couples (donors and recipients) from the oocyte donation program. On the day of retrieval, the oocytes allocated to the synchronous recipient were inseminated and those allocated for banking were denuded of cumulus and vitrified. Vitrified oocytes were microinjected with spermatozoa 2 h after warming. Embryo transfer was performed on Day 2 of development in both groups, and the remaining embryos were cryopreserved on Day 3. Clinical pregnancy was defined by a positive fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks. A total of 989 oocytes were warmed and 85.6% survived. No significant differences were observed between fresh and vitrified oocytes: fertilization rate (80.7 versus 78.2%), ongoing embryo rate (71.0 versus 68.2%) or good-quality embryo rate (54.1 versus 49.8%). The mean number of embryos transferred was similar in both groups (1.82 ± 0.44 versus 1.90 ± 0.34). The implantation rate (33.3 versus 34.0%) and the multiple pregnancy rate (27.7 versus 20.8) were also similar between both groups (P > 0.05). The live birth rate per cycle was 38.4% in the recipients of fresh oocytes and 43.4% in the recipients of vitrified oocytes (P > 0.05). Eighty five frozen embryo transfers were also evaluated. Comparing embryos from fresh and vitrified oocytes there were no significant differences in the embryo survival rate (70.1 versus 65.8%), clinical pregnancy rate (40.8 versus 33.3%) or implantation rate (21.8 versus 26.8%). The oocytes were donated by healthy, young women (≤35 years) and these results cannot be extrapolated to other populations. Outcomes obtained with vitrified oocytes are as good as with fresh oocytes and the use of vitrification can be extended to new applications, e.g. accumulation of oocytes from successive stimulations for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, for patients at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or in patients needing to preserve their fertility. This work was done under the auspices of the Càtedra d'Investigació en Obstetrícia i Ginecologia of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.