Dataset Information

Reproductive outcomes with donor sperm in couples with severe male-factor infertility after intracytoplasmic sperm injection failures.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate reproductive outcomes of artificial insemination and IVF with donor sperm (AID or IVF-D) for male-factor couples with a history of unsuccessful ICSI attempt.

Methods

This retrospective cohort includes couples with severe male-factor infertility who failed ICSI treatment, and subsequently underwent semen donation treatment. We report the following outcomes: (1) live birth rates in AID and IVF-D treatment for couples with severe male infertility factors and prior ICSI failures; (2) paternal impact on embryo development of the same oocyte cohort; (3) prognostic factors in obtaining a live birth with donor semen.

Results

Of 92 women with failed ICSI cycles (26 with multiple attempts), 45 couples underwent AID treatment. Live birth rate per cycle of AID was 18.9%. Fifty-three patients underwent IVF-D including 6 couples who previously did not conceive with AID. Embryological outcomes including fertilization, viable cleavage embryos, and blastocyst formation rates were significantly lower in ICSI cycles with partner sperm compared with IVF-D (P < 0.01). Logistic regression analysis showed that female age and the severity of spermatogenetic disorder are prognostic factors in obtaining a live birth with donated sperm.

Conclusion

Couples with severe male infertility factor (azoospermia or extreme oligoasthenospermia) and a history of unsuccessful ICSI cycles benefit from treating with donor sperm. ICSI fertilization, embryo viability, and progression of the embryo to the blastocyst stage are significantly deteriorated by semen parameters. The prognostic factors identified may help couples plan their treatment and prepare for their parenthood journey.

SUBMITTER: Cai H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7468038 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), originally introduced as add-on to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for couples with severe male infertility, is in current clinical practice also used in couples with mild male or even unexplained infertility. However, ICSI has involved unresolved concerns regarding the selection and damage to gametes and the health conditions of the offspring, and it is also labour intensive and therefore more expensive than conventional IVF. High-quality well-powered randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing ICSI and IVF are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We propose a multicentre, open-label RCT in 10 reproductive medical centres across China. We will study couples with non-severe male infertility (defined as a semen concentrate 5-15×106/mL or sperm with a progressive motility 10%-32%) scheduled for their first or second ICSI or IVF cycle, as low fertility rate after fertilisation are more frequent in this population, which could lead to controversy about ICSI or conventional IVF for fertilisation. On the day of oocyte retrieval, eligible participants are after informed consent be randomised to undergo either ICSI or conventional IVF in a 1:1 treatment ratio. Other standard assisted reproductive treatments are similar and parallel between two groups. Our primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth after the first cycle with embryo transfer. To demonstrate or refute a difference of 7% between ICSI and conventional IVF, we need to include 2346 women (1173 in each intervention arm). In addition, we will follow-up neonatal outcomes after delivery to identify the influence of ICSI on offspring. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was obtained from Peking University Third Hospital medical science research ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT03298633).

Project description:IntroductionThe use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has dramatically increased in patients with non-male factor infertility during the last decades. However, whether ICSI provides a significant benefit over in vitro fertilization (IVF) in these patients is still controversial. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of ICSI on reproductive outcomes with non-male factor infertility and to provide updated evidence for clinical practice.Material and methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy between ICSI and IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility were included. The main outcomes were the live birth rate (LBR), fertilization rate (FR), and total fertilization failure (TFF). The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023427004).ResultsWe included 18 RCTs with 3249 cycles and 30 994 oocytes. The results demonstrated that ICSI reduced the risk of TFF (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.13-0.50, I2 = 58%) and increased FR per oocyte inseminated/injected (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.20, I2 = 69%), but it did not improve LBR (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.94-1.30, I2 = 0%) or other outcomes compared with IVF. However, the difference in fertilization failure reduction between ICSI and IVF may be explained by different randomization methods (randomization based on patients vs. sibling oocytes). When considering only studies with randomization based on patients, we found no evidence of the difference between the groups (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48-1.06, I2 = 0%). Furthermore, no differences were observed in subgroup analyses based on other factors, including female age, study period, and controlled ovarian stimulation protocols.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that ICSI leads to no difference in reproductive outcomes compared to IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility. Considering the cost and safety of ICSI, we have no evidence to support the routine use of ICSI in these populations. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes will be needed to confirm our results and explore clinical and neonatal outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionOver the last decades, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has increased, even among patients without male factor infertility. The increase has happened even though there is no evidence to support that ICSI results in higher live birth rates compared with conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in cases with nonmale factor infertility. The lack of robust evidence on an advantage of using ICSI over conventional IVF in these patients is problematic since ICSI is more invasive, complex and requires additional resources, time and effort. Therefore, the primary objective of the IVF versus ICSI (INVICSI) study is to determine whether ICSI is superior to standard IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. The primary outcome measure is first live birth from fresh and frozen-thawed transfers after one stimulated cycle. Secondary outcomes include fertilisation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, birth weight and congenital anomalies.Methods and analysisThis is a two-armed, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. In total, 824 couples/women with infertility without severe male factor will be recruited and allocated randomly into two groups (IVF or ICSI) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will be randomised in variable block sizes and stratified by trial site and age. The main inclusion criteria are (1) no prior IVF/ICSI treatment, (2) male partner sperm with an expected count of minimum 2 million progressive motile spermatozoa following density gradient purification on the day of oocyte pick up and (3) age of the woman between 18 and 42 years.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles in the Helsinki Declaration. The study is approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark. Study findings will be presented, irrespectively of results at international conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04128904. Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of Y chromosome microdeletions varies among men with infertility across regions and ethnicities worldwide. However, comprehensive epidemiological studies on Y chromosome microdeletions in Chinese men with infertility are lacking. We aimed to investigate Y chromosome microdeletions prevalence among Chinese men with infertility and its correlation with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcomes.MethodsThis single-center retrospective study included 4,714 men with infertility who were evaluated at the Reproductive Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between May 2017 and January 2021. Semen analysis and Y-chromosome microdeletion via multiplex polymerase chain reaction were conducted on the men. The study compared outcomes of 36 ICSI cycles from couples with male azoospermia factor (AZF)cd deletions with those of a control group, which included 72 ICSI cycles from couples without male Y chromosome microdeletions, during the same period. Both groups underwent ICSI treatment using ejaculated sperm.ResultsAmong 4,714 Chinese men with infertility, 3.31% had Y chromosome microdeletions. The combined deletion of sY254 and sY255 in the AZFc region and sY152 in the AZFd region was the prevalent pattern of Y chromosome microdeletion, with 3.05% detection rate. The detection rates of AZF deletions in patients with normal total sperm count, mild oligozoospermia, severe oligozoospermia, cryptozoospermia, and azoospermia were 0.17%, 1.13%, 5.53%, 71.43%, and 7.54%, respectively. Compared with the control group, the AZFcd deletion group exhibited no significant difference in the laboratory results or pregnancy outcomes of ICSI cycles using ejaculated sperm.ConclusionsThis is the largest epidemiological study on Y chromosome microdeletions in Chinese men with infertility. The study results underline the necessity for detecting Y chromosome microdeletion in men with infertility and severe sperm count abnormalities, especially those with cryptozoospermia. The combined deletion of sY254 and sY255 in the AZFc region and sY152 in the AZFd region was the most prevalent Y chromosome microdeletion pattern. Among patients with AZFcd deletion and ejaculated sperm, ICSI treatment can result in pregnancy outcomes, similar to those without AZFcd deletion.

Project description:BackgroundSperm selection strategies aimed at improving success rates of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) include binding to hyaluronic acid (herein termed hyaluronan). Hyaluronan-selected sperm have reduced levels of DNA damage and aneuploidy. Use of hyaluronan-based sperm selection for ICSI (so-called physiological ICSI [PICSI]) is reported to reduce the proportion of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. However, the effect of PICSI on livebirth rates is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of PICSI versus standard ICSI for improving livebirth rates among couples undergoing fertility treatment.MethodsThis parallel, two-group, randomised trial included couples undergoing an ICSI procedure with fresh embryo transfer at 16 assisted conception units in the UK. Eligible women (aged 18-43 years) had a body-mass index of 19-35 kg/m2 and a follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) concentration of 3·0-20·0 mIU/mL or, if no FSH measurement was available, an anti-müllerian hormone concentration of at least 1·5 pmol/L. Eligible men (aged 18-55 years) had not had a vasovasostomy or been treated for cancer in the 24 months before recruitment and were able, after at least 3 days of sexual abstinence, to produce freshly ejaculated sperm for the treatment cycle. Couples were randomly assigned (1:1) with an online system to receive either PICSI or a standard ICSI procedure. The primary outcome was full-term (≥37 weeks' gestational age) livebirth, which was assessed in all eligible couples who completed follow-up. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN99214271.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2016, 2772 couples were randomly assigned to receive PICSI (n=1387) or ICSI (n=1385), of whom 2752 (1381 in the PICSI group and 1371 in the ICSI group) were included in the primary analysis. The term livebirth rate did not differ significantly between PICSI (27·4% [379/1381]) and ICSI (25·2% [346/1371]) groups (odds ratio 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). There were 56 serious adverse events in total, including 31 in the PICSI group and 25 in the ICSI group; most were congenital abnormalities and none were attributed to treatment.InterpretationCompared with ICSI, PICSI does not significantly improve term livebirth rates. The wider use of PICSI, therefore, is not recommended at present.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme.