Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved

Sfontouris, Ioannis A.; Kolibianakis, Efstratios M.; Lainas, George T.; Navaratnarajah, Ram; Tarlatzis, Basil C.; Lainas, Trifon G.

doi:10.1007/s10815-015-0459-5

Cited by 40 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the variations in definitions, all studies exemplified the limitation of what was stated earlier: a lack of proof that ICSI improved LBR or FR. A retrospective study from 1991-2016 using the national Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HEFA) database singled out over 60,000 cycles meeting criteria for POR with autologous oocytes [25]. The LBR per cycle was equal between the two groups (IVF: 12.2% and ICSI: 12.4%), as was TFF [25].…”

Section: Poor Ovarian Reservementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A retrospective study from 1991-2016 using the national Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HEFA) database singled out over 60,000 cycles meeting criteria for POR with autologous oocytes [25]. The LBR per cycle was equal between the two groups (IVF: 12.2% and ICSI: 12.4%), as was TFF [25]. A 2015 study also specifically utilized the Bologna criteria to determine if ICSI is beneficial in those with POR and NMF.…”

Section: Poor Ovarian Reservementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Non-Male Factor Infertility—A Critical Review

Glenn

Kotlyar

Seifer

2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was originally designed to overcome barriers due to male factor infertility. However, a surveillance study found that ICSI use in non-male factor infertility increased from 15.4% to 66.9% between 1996 and 2012. Numerous studies have investigated fertilization rate, total fertilization failure, and live birth rate per cycle (LBR), comparing the use of ICSI versus conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) for non-male factor infertility. The overwhelming conclusion shows no increase in fertilization rate or LBR per cycle with the use of ICSI for non-male factor infertility. The overuse of ICSI is likely related to the desire to avoid a higher rate of total fertilization failure in IVF. However, data supporting the benefit of using ICSI for non-male factor infertility is lacking, and 33 couples would need to be treated with ICSI unnecessarily to avoid one case of total fertilization failure. Such practice increases the cost to the patient, increases the burden on embryologist’s time, and is a misapplication of resources. Additionally, there remains conflicting data regarding the safety of offspring conceived by ICSI and potential damage to the oocyte. Thus, the use of ICSI should be limited to those with male factor infertility or a history of total fertilization factor infertility due to uncertainties of potential adverse impact and lack of proven benefit in non-male factor infertility.

show abstract

Section: Poor Ovarian Reservementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Poor Ovarian Reservementioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Non-Male Factor Infertility—A Critical Review

Glenn

Kotlyar

Seifer

2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was a trend of lower pregnancy rate per cycle after ICSI as compared to IVF, with the implantation rate even being statistically higher after IVF. Since then, there have been no new large RCTs on this topic, or they have just focused on couples with specific diagnostic categories (Fan et al , 2012; Komsky-Elbaz et al , 2013; Sfontouris et al , 2015). A recent large, observational study based on national data from the USA has demonstrated that in non-male factor cycles, ICSI use was associated with lower rates of implantation compared to conventional IVF (23.0% versus 25.2%, respectively; adjusted RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91–0.95) and live birth (36.5% versus 39.2%, respectively; adjusted RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93–0.97) (Boulet et al , 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of ICSI versus conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Dang¹,

Vuong

et al. 2019

Human Reproduction Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study questions Does ICSI result in a higher live birth rate as compared with conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility? What is known already ICSI is primarily indicated for severe male factor infertility. While the use of ICSI for couples with non-male factor infertility has been increasing worldwide, this is not supported by data from randomised controlled trials. Evidence from non-randomised studies suggest no benefit from ICSI compared with conventional IVF in non-male factor infertility, if not a harm. Study design, size, duration This randomised, open-label, multi-centre trial aims to compare the effectiveness of one ICSI cycle and one conventional IVF cycle in infertile couples with non-male factor infertility. A total of 1064 couples will be randomly allocated to an ICSI group and a conventional IVF group. The estimated duration of the study is 30 months. Participants/materials, setting, methods Eligible couples are those whose husbands’ total sperm count and motility are normal, have undergone ≤2 previous IVF/ICSI attempts, use antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation, agree to have ≤2 embryos transferred and are not participating in another IVF study at the same time. Women undergoing IVM cycles, using frozen semen or having a poor fertilisation (≤25%) in previous cycle will not be eligible. Couples will be randomised to undergo ICSI or conventional IVF (1:1) with ongoing pregnancy resulting in live birth after the first embryo transfer of the started treatment cycle as the primary endpoint. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Effect sizes will be summarised as relative risk (RR), with precision evaluated by 95% CIs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All authors declare having no conflict of interests with regards to this trial. This work was supported by a grant from MSD [MISP #57508]. Trial registration number NCT03428919. Trial registration date 8 February 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 16 March 2018.

show abstract

“…6 While ICSI has resulted in high success rates in couples treated for severe male factor infertility, studies have indicated that ICSI offers no advantage over conventional IVF in nonmale factor infertility couples when it comes to live birth rates. [7][8][9][10][11] Moreover, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recently published a committee opinion stating that 'in cases without male factor infertility or a history of prior fertilisation failure, the routine use of ICSI for all oocytes is not supported by the available evidence'. 12 In the US study from 2018, the large increase in use of ICSI was correlated with a 7.6% (p=0.001) increase in live birth rates per cycle in women younger than 35 years.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in patients without severe male factor infertility: study protocol for the randomised, controlled, multicentre trial INVICSI

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved

Cited by 40 publications

References 50 publications

The Impact of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Non-Male Factor Infertility—A Critical Review

The Impact of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Non-Male Factor Infertility—A Critical Review

The effectiveness of ICSI versus conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in patients without severe male factor infertility: study protocol for the randomised, controlled, multicentre trial INVICSI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About