No abstract

IntroductionIntracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) is one of the sperm selection techniques used for assisted reproduction which has been applied for a variety of indications including previously failed fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). A Cochrane review1 found no difference in outcomes between either modality of sperm selection. Since the Cochrane review was published there have been a further two randomized controlled trials comparing IMSI and ICSI. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aims to compare IMSI with ICSI as insemination methods regarding live birth rate and miscarriage rate.Material and methodsSystematic review of randomized controlled trials, observational studies and similar reviews in electronic databases published before January 2018.ResultsWe found nine randomized controlled trials, evaluating 1610 cycles of in vitro fertilization and 15 observational studies evaluating 1243 cycles of in vitro fertilization. Meta‐analysis of the included randomized controlled trials showed no difference in the live birth rate or miscarriage rate between the ICSI and IMSI groups. Meta‐analysis of five observational studies showed a significantly higher number of live births in the IMSI group than ICSI group (live birth rate odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.16‐4.07), with a moderate degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 41%). Additionally, from six observational studies, a significantly lower miscarriage rate was observed in the IMSI group than in the ICSI group (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.37‐0.70, I2 = 0%).ConclusionsMeta‐analysis of randomized studies comparing IMSI to ICSI has not shown any difference in live birth rate and miscarriage rate. Meta‐analysis of observational studies, which must be interpreted with caution, revealed an increased live birth rate and decreased miscarriage rate with IMSI vs ICSI.

Background: The advent of ovarian stimulation within an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle has resulted in modifying the physiology of stimulated cycles and has helped optimize pregnancy outcomes. In this regard, the importance of progesterone (P4) elevation at time of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) administration within an IVF cycle has been studied over several decades. Our study aimed to evaluate the association of P4 levels at time of hCG trigger with live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and miscarriage rate (MR) in fresh IVF or IVF-ICSI cycles. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study (n=170) involving patients attending the Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health (CRGH) in London. The study cohort consisted of women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation using GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonist protocols. Univariate and multiple logistic regression ana-lyses were used to evaluate the association of clinical outcomes. Differences were considered statistically significant if p£0.05. Results: As serum progesterone increased, a decrease in LBR was observed. Following multivariate logistical analyses, LBR significantly decreased with P4 thresholds of 4.0 ng/ml (OR 0.42, 95% CI:0.17-1.0) and 4.5 ng/ml (OR 0.35, 95% CI:0.12-0.96). Conclusion: P4 levels are important in specific groups and the findings were statistically significant with a P4 threshold value between 4.0-4.5 ng/ml. Therefore, it seems logical to selectively measure serum P4 levels for patients who have ovarian dysfunction or an ovulatory cycles and accordingly prepare the individualized management packages for such patients.

Study question Does PGD treatment in couples with a history of RPL due to male translocations improve the outcome, increasing LBR and reducing miscarriage rate and time taken to live birth? Summary answer Live birth rate is significantly increased, miscarriage rate is significantly reduced using PGD. Time taken to achieve live birth rate is shorter in PGD treatment. What is known already Reciprocal translocation are the most common structural rearrangement in infertile men. The specific chromosomes and breakpoints involved might play an important role, often expressed as abnormal semen parameters or repeated pregnancy loss (RPL). The genetic counselling of these men remains challenging. Previous studies and meta-analysis performed showed no difference in live birth rate when comparing natural conception versus PGD treatment. However, the difference in miscarriage rate and time to live birth between PGD and natural conception has not been reported before in the medical literature. Study design, size, duration A systematic review of the literature was ­conducted through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database up until December 2020. A comprehensive search yield 287 articles, 25 of which were included for abstract reading, finally, six were included in the meta-analysis. Participants/materials, setting, methods The six selected articles, reported on Live birth rate (LBR), miscarriage rate and time to live birth (TTLB) for natural conception compared to PGD for the same cohort of patients. All of the included articles were of retrospective design. The primary outcome was the comparison in LBR and the second outcome was the analysis in miscarriage rate and TTLB in the PGD group versus natural conception. Main results and the role of chance A total of 1438 couples that conceived naturally, had a LBR of 22.46%, compared with 43,17% among 681 couples that underwent PGD (0.53 95% CI (0.43-0.65) p o < 0,00001). The six articles included in this meta-analysis had significant homogeneity (I2 = 96%). Comparison of miscarriage rates, natural conception represented 1339 miscarriages out of 1836 pregnancies, in comparison with 44 miscarriages out of 558 pregnancies achieved through PGD. The OR showed a 10 fold increase risk of miscarriage when conceiving naturally in couples with a male translocation (10.18; 95% CI (2.88-36.04) p = 0.0003). Regarding TTLB, the difference was not statistically significant, however it did reflect that PGD patients will have a shorter TTLB (3.56 95% CI (-0.88-8.00)p = 0.12). One of the studies included, took into account the waiting list to access PGD funding, prolonging therefore the TTLB in the PGD group. Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation of this study is the low number of studies. TTLB should be interpreted with caution given that one of the articles included the time of the waiting lists. More studies could demonstrate a shorter time period for these couples to conceive and have a successful ongoing pregnancy. Wider implications of the findings First study to demonstrate the value of PGD in decreasing miscarriage rates in couples with RPL. Specially when counselling couples with history of RPL with male translocations. PGD should be offered in these couples to improve the outcome, and to diminish the physical, emotional and sequelae of RPL and TOP. Trial registration number not applicable