The present results indicate that cumulus cells removal at 6 h of insemination is a relatively safe operation, which yielded comparable normal fertilization rate, multinucleation and clinical pregnancy rates compared with 20 h group. This protocol may be beneficial for early obsevation of fertilization failure and make early rescue ICSI possible.
Failed fertilization after conventional IVF is one of the most frustrating experiences in assisted reproductive technology. "Late" rescue ICSI may be not an optimal strategy for treating unfertilized oocytes. Short co-incubation of gametes combined with early rescue ICSI has some advantages for complete fertilization failure after IVF. We evaluate the strategy and the optimal time for early rescue ICSI. A total of 180 patients underwent short co-incubation of gametes combined with early rescue ICSI treatment for complete fertilization failure after IVF (study group). A total of 494 ICSI patients with male factor infertility served as a control group. Clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, and live birth rate in the two groups were compared. The study group was divided into three different rescue time intervals (<6 h, 6-8 h, and >8 h). Clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, and live birth rate were comparable between the study group and the control group. There was a negative correlation between clinical outcomes and rescue time interval.
In this prospective cohort study, the effects of a time-lapse monitoring system on embryo quality and clinical pregnancy outcomes were assessed. A total of 608 patients undergoing in vitro fertilization between April 2013 and June 2014 at our institution were recruited for this study and group-matched into a time-lapse monitoring (TLM) (N = 304) or a standard incubator (SI) (N = 304). The patients' characteristics in the TLM and SI groups were not significantly different. The TLM group showed a significantly higher transferable embryo ratio at Day 3 (61.65% vs. 52.87%; p < 0.0010, RR =1.10 [1.02, 1.19]), a higher number of transferable embryos (4.71 ± 2.38 vs. 4.09 ± 2.35; p = 0.0053, SMD =0.26 [0.06, 0.46]) and number of good-quality embryos cryopreserved at Day 3 (2.72 ± 2.35 vs. 2.11 ± 2.33; p = 0.0056, SMD =0.26 [0.06, 0.46]). In addition, the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were not statistically significant between the TLM and SI groups. However, the TLM group had a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (67.32% vs. 57.22%; p = 0.0410) and live birth rate (65.37% vs. 55%; p = 0.0380) compared with the SI group. The observed beneficial effects could be the result of a more stable environment provided by the TLM system.
BACKGROUND Conflicting results have been reported regarding the technique of brief insemination used in IVF. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine if better clinical outcomes of IVF are associated with a brief co-incubation of gametes than with a standard overnight co-incubation. METHODS A computerized search was conducted of the published literature of four databases, using search terms related to gamete, time of co-incubation and outcome measure. Eligible studies compared outcomes of IVF with a brief co-incubation of gametes to that of a control group of standard insemination and reported rates of live birth (primary outcome), normal fertilization, polyspermy, good quality embryos, implantation, clinical pregnancy or ongoing pregnancy (secondary outcomes). A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the data. Statistical heterogeneity was tested using Cochran Q and I² values. RESULTS Brief co-incubation of gametes was associated with significantly higher rates of clinical pregnancy (RR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.24-2.73) and ongoing pregnancy (RR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.27-2.33) than standard insemination. Brief co-incubation of gametes was associated also with a significantly higher rate of implantation (RR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.43-2.26) than standard insemination. However, the rates of normal fertilization (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.02), good quality embryos (RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.0-1.53) and polyspermy (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.7-1.01) were not significantly different with brief co-incubation of gametes compared with standard insemination. CONCLUSIONS Reduced gamete exposure time may be associated with beneficial outcomes. Drawbacks inherent to the quality of several studies limit the quality of the available evidence. Adequately powered randomized controlled studies need to be performed to evaluate the efficacy of brief insemination.
Purpose This study aimed to analyze the impact of different biopsy protocols on the rate of mosaic blastocysts. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study which included 115 cycles with pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Two groups were allocated based on the biopsy protocols: method 1 group, the zona pellucida (ZP) was drilled on day 3 embryos followed by trophectoderm (TE) biopsy; and method 2 group, the ZP was opened on day 5 or 6 blastocysts followed by TE biopsy. All biopsy samples were assessed using next-generation sequencing (NGS) at a single reference laboratory. The euploid, aneuploid, and mosaic blastocyst rates and clinical outcomes were compared. Results The mosaicism rate in the method 1 group was 19.58%, significantly higher than the method 2 group (8.12%; P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in euploid, aneuploid blastocyst rates, and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the biopsy protocols were independently associated with the mosaicism rates among all the variables. Conclusions The present study showed that different biopsy protocols may have an impact on the mosaic blastocyst rate. ZP opening on day 3 combined with TE biopsy might increase the incidence of mosaic blastocysts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.