Mais de três quartos dos participantes concordou com a extensão do limite da criopreservação de embriões em Portugal, opinião diretamente associada à experiência prévia de pelo menos um tratamento. As mulheres com filhos tenderam a escolher períodos de criopreservação mais reduzidos. Mais de dois quintos das mulheres escolheram a opção 4-5 anos, e 41,8% dos homens estenderam para além dos 5 anos.
Um terço dos casais entrevistados reportou sentir lacunas no conhecimento sobre a criopreservação de embriões, nomeadamente quanto aos critérios usados para estabelecer um limite temporal máximo durante o qual os embriões podem permanecer criopreservados. No entanto, todos os casais identificaram pelo menos um critério, realçando-se a crença na existência de critérios baseados na evidência. Os custos da criopreservação e a diminuição da qualidade dos embriões foram as razões mais frequentemente invocadas, seguidas pelas prioridades políticas quanto à promoção da fertilidade e à perceção do tempo adequado para tomar uma decisão final quanto ao destino dos embriões criopreservados.
Este estudo sugere que os utilizadores de técnicas de PMA apoiam a extensão do período máximo de criopreservação de embriões em Portugal. Além disso, os resultados salientam a necessidade de disseminar informação precisa sobre a criopreservação de embriões junto dos beneficiários, e de investir em modelos de consentimento informado sensíveis às respetivas diferenças, nomeadamente no que respeita a trajetória reprodutiva. A perspetiva dos utilizadores poderá servir de mote para debater o desenvolvimento de orientações supranacionais que regulem a duração máxima da criopreservação de embriões.
44
REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
1. ESHRE. Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) – Glossary. 2013-2015 [cited 25 May 2014]; Available from: http://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/ART- glossary.aspx.
2. ASRM. Cryopreservation and Storage. [cited 25 May 2014]; Available from: http://www.asrm.org/topics/detail.aspx?id=408.
3. DeCS. Descritores em Ciências da Saúde. [cited 25 May 2014]; Available from: http://decs.bvs.br/cgi-bin/wxis1660.exe/decsserver/?IsisScript=../cgi-
bin/decsserver/decsserver.xis&interface_language=p&previous_page=homepage& previous_task=NULL&task=start.
4. Leibo, S.P., Cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos: optimization by theoretical versus empirical analysis. Theriogenology, 2008. 69(1): p. 37-47.
5. Brison, D., Cutting, R., et al., ACE consensus meeting report: oocyte and embryo cryopreservation Sheffield 17.05.11. Hum Fertil (Camb), 2012. 15(2): p. 69-74. 6. AbdelHafez, F.F., Desai, N., et al., Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid
freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online, 2010. 20(2): p. 209-22.
7. Mukaida, T. and Oka, C., Vitrification of oocytes, embryos and blastocysts. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2012. 26(6): p. 789-803.
8. Saragusty, J. and Arav, A., Current progress in oocyte and embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing and vitrification. Reproduction, 2011. 141(1): p. 1-19.
9. Kolibianakis, E.M., Venetis, C.A., et al., Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which one is better? Curr Opin Obstet Gyn, 2009. 21(3): p. 270-274.
10. Riggs, R., Mayer, J., et al., Does storage time influence postthaw survival and pregnancy outcome? An analysis of 11,768 cryopreserved human embryos. Fertil Steril, 2010. 93(1): p. 109-115.
11. Capalbo, A., Rienzi, L., et al., The worldwide frozen embryo reservoir: methodologies to achieve optimal results. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2011. 1221(Reproductive Science): p. 32-9.
12. Edgar, D.H. and Gook, D.A., A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update, 2012. 18(5): p. 536-54.
45 13. Gook, D.A., History of oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online, 2011.
23(3): p. 281-9.
14. Polge, C., Smith, A.U., et al., Revival of Spermatozoa after Vitrification and Dehydration at Low Temperatures. Nature, 1949. 164(4172): p. 666-666.
15. Trounson, A. and Mohr, L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature 1983 [cited 6 February 2014];
Available from:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v305/n5936/abs/305707a0.html.
16. CNPMA. PMA em Portugal. [cited 25 May 2014]; Available from: http://www.cnpma.org.pt/cidadaos_pma.aspx.
17. Fasouliotis, S.J. and Schenker, J.G., Cryopreservation of embryos: medical, ethical, and legal issues. J Assist Reprod Genet, 1996. 13(10): p. 756-61.
18. Sullivan, E.A., Zegers-Hochschild, F., et al., International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum Reprod, 2013. 28(5): p. 1375-90.
19. Nygren, K.G. and Andersen, A.N., Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1999. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod, 2002. 17(12): p. 3260-74.
20. Ferraretti, A.P., Goossens, V., et al., Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod, 2013. 28(9): p. 2318-31.
21. Ory, S.J., Devroey, P., et al., IFFS Surveillance 2013. 2013, International Federation of Fertility Societies. [cited 8 August 2014]; Available from: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iffs-
reproduction.org/resource/resmgr/iffs_surveillance_09-19-13.pdf
22. Lei, nº32/2006 Regula a utilização de técnicas de procriação medicamente assistida. 2006: Diário da República 1ª Série nº143. p. 5245-5250.
23. Edwards, R.G. and Beard, H.K., UK law dictated the destruction of 3000 cryopreserved human embryos in Destruction of Cryopreserved embryos (Debate). Hum Reprod, 1997. 12(1): p. 3-11.
24. Ron-El, R., Assisted reproductive technology and embryo preservation in Destruction of cryopreserved embryos (Debate). Hum Reprod, 1997. 12(1): p. 3- 11.
25. Deonandan, R., The public health implications of assisted reproductive technologies. Chronic Dis Can, 2010. 30(4): p. 119-24.
46 26. Brezina, P.R. and Zhao, Y., The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by
modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol Int, 2012. 2012. 27. Provoost, V., Pennings, G., et al., Decisions on embryo disposition in cross-border
reproductive care: differences between Belgian and Dutch patients at a Belgian fertility center. Facts Views Vis Obgyn, 2011. 3(4): p. 293-301.
28. Cattoli, M., Borini, A., et al., Fate of stored embryos: our 10 years experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2004. 115(115): p. S16-S18.
29. Ashrafi, M., Jahangiri, N., et al., The factors affecting the outcome of frozen- thawed embryo transfer cycle. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2011. 50(2): p. 159-64. 30. Silva, S. and Machado, H., Heterosexual couples' uses and meanings of ovarian
stimulation: Relatedness, embodiment and emotions. Health (London), 2011. 15(6): p. 620-32.
31. Rizk, B. and Aboulghar, M., Modern management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod, 1991. 6(8): p. 1082-7.
32. Olivennes, F. and Frydman, R., Friendly IVF: the way of the future? Hum Reprod, 1998. 13(5): p. 1121-4.
33. Samorinha, C., Pereira, M., et al., Factors associated with the donation and non- donation of embryos for research: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update, 2014 Jun 6. pii: dmu026. [Epub ahead of print]
34. Silva, S., Machado, H., et al., Expectativas sobre a investigação científica em embriões: decisores políticos e casais em procriação medicamente assistida. Indagatio Didactica, 2013. 5(2): 601-613.
35. Provoost, V., Pennings, G., et al., "Something of the two of us". The emotionally loaded embryo disposition decision making of patients who view their embryo as a symbol of their relationship. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol, 2012. 33(2): p. 45-52. 36. Schuster, T.G., Hickner-Cruz, K., et al., Legal considerations for cryopreservation
of sperm and embryos. Fertil Steril, 2003. 80(1): p. 61-6.
37. Alves, B., Machado, H., et al., Reflections on human embryo research: the debate in Portuguese ethics organizations. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos, 2013. 20(suppl.1): 1137-51.
38. Fuscaldo, G., Russell, S., et al., How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients' views. Hum Reprod, 2007. 22(12): p. 3129-38.
39. Lyerly, A., Brelsford, E., et al., A qualitative study of individuals' attitudes regarding their cryopreserved embryos, in Research Papers in Fertility and Reproductive Medicine, Daya, S., Pierson, R., et al., Editors. 2004. p. 353-356.
47 40. Fasouliotis, S.J. and Schenker, J.G., Ethics and assisted reproduction. Eur J
Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2000. 90(2): p. 171-80.
41. Haimes, E., Porz, R., et al., ‘So, what is an embryo?’ A comparative study of the views of those asked to donate embryos for hESC research in the UK and Switzerland. New genet Soc, 2008. 27(2): p. 113-126.
42. Schenker, J.G., Assisted reproduction practice in Europe: legal and ethical aspects. Hum Reprod Update, 1997. 3(2): p. 173-84.
43. de Mouzon, J., Goossens, V., et al., Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod, 2010. 25(8): p. 1851-62.
44. Marietta, C.S., Birth of Healthy Baby from 20-Year-Old Frozen Embryo Raises Ethical Questions. Health Law Perspectives, 2011. [cited 8 August 2014]. Available from: http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2011/(CM)%20IVF.pdf
45. Provoost, V., Pennings, G., et al., Patients’ conceptualization of cryopreserved embryos used in their fertility treatment. Hum Reprod, 2010. 25(3): p. 705-713. 46. Provoost, V., Pennings, G., et al., To continue or discontinue storage of
cryopreserved embryos? Patients' decisions in view of their child wish. Hum Reprod, 2011. 26(4): p. 861-72.
47. Michelmann, H.W. and Nayudu, P., Cryopreservation of human embryos. Cell Tissue Bank, 2006. 7(2): p. 135-41.
48. Bielanski, A., A review of the risk of contamination of semen and embryos during cryopreservation and measures to limit cross-contamination during banking to prevent disease transmission in ET practices. Theriogenology, 2012. 77(3): p. 467- 82.
49. Mills, M., Rindfuss, R.R., et al., Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update, 2011. 17(6): p. 848-60.
50. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disposition of abandoned embryos: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2013. 99(7): p. 1848-9. 51. Provoost, V., Pennings, G., et al., The frozen embryo and its nonresponding
parents. Fertil Steril, 2011. 95(6): p. 1980-4, 1984.e1.
52. Lyerly, A.D., Nakagawa, S., et al., Decisional conflict and the disposition of frozen embryos: implications for informed consent. Hum Reprod, 2011. 26(3): p. 646-54. 53. Provoost, V., Pennings, G., et al., Trends in embryo disposition decisions: patients'
responses to a 15-year mailing program. Hum Reprod, 2012. 27(2): p. 506-14. 54. Bankowski, B.J., Lyerly, A.D., et al., The social implications of embryo
48 55. Raposo, V.L., O Dilema do Rei Salomão: Conflitos de Vontade quanto ao Destino
dos Embriões Excedentários. RIDB, 2013. 2(6): p. 5477-5520.
56. De Lacey, S., Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into patients´ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Hum Reprod, 2007. 22(6): p. 1751-1758.
57. Provoost, V., Pennings, G., et al., Infertility patients´ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Hum Reprod, 2009. 24(4): p. 896-905.
58. Svanberg, A.S., Boivin, J., et al., The impact of frozen embryos on emotional reactions during in vitro fertilization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2001. 80(12): p. 1110-4.
59. Bangsboll, S., Pinborg, A., et al., Patients' attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Hum Reprod, 2004. 19(10): p. 2415-9.
60. Luna, M., Boada, M., et al., Couples' opinions regarding the fate of surplus frozen embryos. Reprod Biomed Online, 2009. 19: p. 11-15.
61. Asensio, M., Boada, M., et al., Opinión de las parejas sobre el futuro de sus embriones pasados 5 años de congelación. Progresos Obstetricia Ginecología, 2001. 44: p. 199–204.
62. Hammarberg, K. and Tinney, L., Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: a survey of couples' decisions and the factors influencing their choice. Fertil Steril, 2006. 86(1): p. 86-91.
63. Newton, C.R., Fisher, J., et al., Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod, 2007. 22(12): p. 3124-8.
64. Lanzendorf, S., Ratts, V., et al., Disposition of cryopreserved embryos by infertility patients desiring to discontinue storage. Fertil Steril, 2010. 93(2): p. 486-9.
65. Lyerly, A.D., Steinhauser, K., et al., Fertility patients' views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil Steril, 2010. 93(2): p. 499-509.
66. Silva, S. and Barros, H., Perspectives on access to in vitro fertilization in Portugal. Rev Saude Publica, 2012. 46(2): p. 344-50.
67. Dancet, E.A., Van Empel, I.W., et al., Patient-centred infertility care: a qualitative study to listen to the patient's voice. Hum Reprod, 2011. 26(4): p. 827-33.
49