Article

Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
Fertility and sterility (Impact Factor: 4.3). 10/2007; 88(3):622-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is associated with improved outcomes for non-male factor infertility.
We examined the patient characteristics associated with treatment choice-ICSI and conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF)-among patients without a diagnosis of male factor infertility and compared outcomes between the two groups, adjusting for patient characteristics using multivariate regression models.
Academic fertility center.
We evaluated 696 consecutive assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles performed for couples with normal semen analysis at the Stanford Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Center between 2002 and 2003. We compared patient characteristics, cycle details, and outcomes for ICSI and IVF.
Fertilization, pregnancy, and live birth rates.
Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups, except the proportion of patients with unexplained infertility (IVF 15.1% vs. ICSI 23.5%), previous fertility (IVF 62.6% vs. ICSI 45.5%), and previous ART cycle (IVF 41.2% vs. ICSI 67.7%). More oocytes were fertilized per cycle for the IVF group (6.6 oocytes versus 5.1 oocytes). Fertilization failure, pregnancy, and live birth rates did not differ between IVF and ICSI. Using logistic regressions, having had previous ART was found to be positively associated with ICSI. Treatment choice of ICSI was not associated with fertilization, pregnancy, or live birth rates.
No clear evidence of improved outcomes with ICSI was demonstrated for non-male factor infertility.

0 Followers
 · 
163 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare reproductive outcomes following conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in poor responders fulfilling the Bologna criteria, with a single oocyte retrieved. The present retrospective study included 243 Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved, who were categorized into three groups, depending on the fertilization method and semen quality (IVF non-male factor-IVF/NMF n = 101; ICSI non-male factor ICSI/NMF n = 50; ICSI male factor-ICSI/MF n = 92). In IVF/NMF, ICSI/NMF and ICSI/MF similar fertilization rates [65.3, 66, 58.7 %, respectively], proportions of embryo formation [63.4, 60, 53.3 %, respectively], proportions of good quality embryos [54.7, 56.7, 57.1 %, respectively], implantation rates [8.9, 10, 8.2 % respectively] and live birth rates per oocyte retrieval [5.0, 4.0, 3.3 %, respectively] were observed. Degeneration rate of oocytes due to mechanical damage was significantly higher after ICSI in the ICSI/NMF and ICSI/MF groups (8 and 6.5 %, respectively) compared to IVF/NMF (0 %) (p = 0.02). Conventional IVF and ICSI are associated with similar reproductive outcomes in poor responder patients with a single oocyte retrieved. Therefore, the choice of fertilization method should be based primarily on semen quality, in combination with the patient's previous history. A randomized controlled trial should be performed to confirm this study's findings that conventional IVF and ICSI have similar reproductive outcomes in poor responders.
    Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10815-015-0459-5 · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 01/2015; 313(3):255-263. DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.17985. · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is increasingly used in patients without severe male factor infertility without clear evidence of a benefit over conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF). To assess national trends and reproductive outcomes for fresh IVF cycles (embryos transferred without being frozen) following the use of ICSI compared with conventional IVF with respect to clinical indications for ICSI use. Retrospective cohort study using data on fresh IVF and ICSI cycles reported to the US National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System during 1996-2012. Trends in ICSI use during 1996-2012 with respect to male factor infertility, unexplained infertility, maternal age 38 years or older, low oocyte yield, and 2 or more prior assisted reproductive technology cycles; reproductive outcomes for conventional IVF and ICSI cycles during 2008-2012, stratified by the presence or absence of male factor infertility. Of the 1,395,634 fresh IVF cycles from 1996 through 2012, 908,767 (65.1%) used ICSI and 499,135 (35.8%) reported male factor infertility. Among cycles with male factor infertility, ICSI use increased from 76.3% (10,876/14,259) to 93.3% (32,191/34,506) (P < .001) during 1996-2012; for those without male factor infertility, ICSI use increased from 15.4% (4197/27,191) to 66.9% (42,321/63,250) (P < .001). During 2008-2012, male factor infertility was reported for 35.7% (176,911/494,907) of fresh cycles. Among those cycles, ICSI use was associated with a lower multiple birth rate compared with conventional IVF (30.9% vs 34.2%; adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.91). Among cycles without male factor infertility (n = 317,996), ICSI use was associated with lower rates of implantation (23.0% vs 25.2%; adjusted RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95), live birth (36.5% vs 39.2%; adjusted RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97), and multiple live birth (30.1% vs 31.0%; adjusted RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95) vs conventional IVF. Among fresh IVF cycles in the United States, ICSI use increased from 36.4% in 1996 to 76.2% in 2012, with the largest relative increase among cycles without male factor infertility. Compared with conventional IVF, ICSI use was not associated with improved postfertilization reproductive outcomes, irrespective of male factor infertility diagnosis.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 01/2015; 313(3):255-63. DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.17985 · 30.39 Impact Factor