Dataset Information

Comparison of clinical outcomes between in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in IVF-ICSI split insemination cycles.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in sibling oocytes. Additionally, we evaluated whether the implementation of split insemination contributed to an increase in the number of ICSI procedures.A total of 571 cycles in 555 couples undergoing split insemination cycles were included in this study. Among them, 512 cycles (89.7%) were a couple's first IVF cycle. The patients were under 40 years of age and at least 10 oocytes were retrieved in all cycles. Sibling oocytes were randomly allocated to IVF or ICSI.Total fertilization failure was significantly more common in IVF cycles than in ICSI cycles (4.0% vs. 1.4%, p<0.05), but the low fertilization rate among retrieved oocytes (as defined by fertilization rates greater than 0% but <30%) was significantly higher in ICSI cycles than in IVF cycles (17.2% vs. 11.4%, p<0.05). The fertilization rate of ICSI among injected oocytes was significantly higher than for IVF (72.3%±24.3% vs. 59.2%±25.9%, p<0.001), but the fertilization rate among retrieved oocytes was significantly higher in IVF than in ICSI (59.2%±25.9% vs. 52.1%±22.5%, p<0.001). Embryo quality before embryo transfer was not different between IVF and ICSI. Although the sperm parameters were not different between the first cycle and the second cycle, split insemination or ICSI was performed in 18 of the 95 cycles in which a second IVF cycle was performed.The clinical outcomes did not differ between IVF and ICSI in split insemination cycles. Split insemination can decrease the risk of total fertilization failure. However, unnecessary ICSI is carried out in most split insemination cycles and the use of split insemination might make ICSI more common.

SUBMITTER: Lee SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5545226 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Objectives: Although considerable research has been devoted to examining the distinctions between fresh and frozen embryo transfer regarding obstetric outcomes and rates of pregnancy success, there is still a scarcity of thorough analyses that specifically examine neonatal outcomes. The objective of our study was to provide an in-depth analysis of neonatal outcomes that occur after the transfer of fresh and frozen embryos (ET vs. FET) in IVF/ICSI cycles. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wiley, Scopus, Ovid and Science Direct) were searched from January 1980 to February 2024. Two reviewers conducted the article identification and data extraction, meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results: Twenty studies, including 171,481 participants in total, were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses. A significant increase in preterm birth rates was noted with fresh embryo transfer compared to FET in the overall IVF/ICSI population (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.18-1.35, p < 0.00001), as well as greater odds of a low birth weight (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.27-1.48, p < 0.00001) and small-for-gestational-age infants in this group (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.63-2.00, p < 0.00001). In contrast, frozen embryo transfer can result in macrosomic (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.54-0.65, p < 0.00001) or large-for-gestational-age infants (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60-0.69, p < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed regarding congenital malformations or neonatal death rates. Conclusions: This systematic review confirmed that singleton babies conceived by frozen embryo transfer are at lower risk of preterm delivery, low birthweight and being small for gestational age than their counterparts conceived by fresh embryo transfer. The data support embryo cryopreservation but suggest that elective freezing should be limited to cases with a proven indication or within the framework of a clinical study.

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:BackgroundVarious luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS.MethodsA systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsEighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain.ConclusionDelays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.

Dataset Information

Comparison of clinical outcomes between in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in IVF-ICSI split insemination cycles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets