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

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 691-697

  Sfontouris, Ioannis A ^a   Kolibianakis, Efstratios M ^b   Lainas, George T ^a   Navaratnarajah, Ram ^c   Tarlatzis, Basil C ^b   Lainas, Trifon G ^a  

^a Assisted Reproduction Unit Titani   (Greece)

^b ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

^c BARTS HEALTH NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bologna criteria; ICSI; IVF; Live birth; Poor responders; Single oocyte

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BIRTH RATE; CYTOLOGY; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; HUMAN; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; MALE; MAMMALIAN EMBRYO; OOCYTE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; BIRTH RATE; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYO, MAMMALIAN; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; MALE; OOCYTES; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPERM INJECTIONS, INTRACYTOPLASMIC;

EID: 84939959578     PISSN: 10580468     EISSN: 15737330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0459-5     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17–8.
2. Van Steirteghem AC, Nagy Z, Joris H, Liu J, Staessen C, Smitz J, et al. High fertilization and implantation rates after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(7):1061–6.
3. Fishel S, Aslam I, Lisi F, Rinaldi L, Timson J, Jacobson M, et al. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Hum Reprod. 2000;15(6):1278–83.
4. Oehninger S, Gosden RG. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? No, not in light of the scientific data. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(9):2237–42.
5. Nyboe Andersen A, Carlsen E, Loft A. Trends in the use of intracytoplasmatic sperm injection marked variability between countries. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(6):593–604.
6. Sullivan EA, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(5):1375–90.
7. Mansour R, Ishihara O, Adamson GD, Dyer S, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, et al. International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2006. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1536–51.
8. Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, D’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2099–113.
9. Hodes-Wertz B, Mullin CM, Adler A, Noyes N, Grifo JA, Berkeley AS. Is intracytoplasmic sperm injection overused? J Urol. 2012;187(2):602–6.
10. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2571–84.
11. Khamsi F, Yavas Y, Roberge S, Lacanna IC, Wong JC, Endman M. The status of controlled prospective clinical trials for efficacy of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in in vitro fertilization for non-male factor infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(9):504–7.
12. Khamsi F, Yavas Y, Roberge S, Wong JC, Lacanna IC, Endman M. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection increased fertilization and good-quality embryo formation in patients with non-male factor indications for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(2):342–7.
13. Kim HH, Bundorf MK, Behr B, McCallum SW. Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):622–8.
14. Van der Westerlaken L, Naaktgeboren N, Verburg H, Dieben S, Helmerhorst F. Conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with borderline semen: a randomized study using sibling oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):395–400.
15. Check JH, Bollendorf A, Summers-Chase D, Horwath D, Hourani W. Conventional oocyte insemination may result in a better pregnancy outcome than intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for unexplained infertility. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2009;36(3):150–1.
16. Hershlag A, Paine T, Kvapil G, Feng H, Napolitano B. In vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection split: an insemination method to prevent fertilization failure. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2):229–32.
17. Johnson LNC, Sasson IE, Sammel MD, Dokras A. Does intracytoplasmic sperm injection improve the fertilization rate and decrease the total fertilization failure rate in couples with well-defined unexplained infertility? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):704–11.
18. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin YM, Kamal A. Prospective controlled randomized study of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the treatment of tubal factor infertility with normal semen parameters. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(5):753–6.
19. Staessen C, Camus M, Clasen K, De Vos A, Van Steirteghem A. Conventional in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in sibling oocytes from couples with tubal infertility and normozoospermic semen. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(10):2474–9.
20. Hwang JL, Seow KM, Lin YH, Hsieh BC, Huang LW, Chen HJ, et al. IVF versus ICSI in sibling oocytes from patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1261–5.
21. Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simon C, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(8):2126–9.
22. Vicdan K, Isik AZ. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not associated with poor outcome in couples with normal semen parameters and previous idiopathic fertilization failure in conventional in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999;87(1):87–90.
23. Omland A, Bjercke S, Ertzeid G, Fedorcsak P, Oldereid N, Storeng R, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in unexplained and stage I endometriosis-associated infertility after fertilization failure with in vitro fertilization (IVF). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23(2):351–7.
24. Taylor TH, Wright G, Jones-Colon S, Mitchell-Leef D, Kort HI, Nagy ZP. Comparison of ICSI and conventional IVF in patients with increased oocyte immaturity. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(1):46–52.
25. Orief Y, Dafopoulos K, Al-Hassani S. Should ICSI be used in non-male factor infertility? Reprod BioMed Online. 2004;9(3):348–56.
26. Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MP, Shaaban M, Khalaf Y, Seddler M, Ghobara T, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilisation versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male-factor infertility: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;357(9274):2075–9.
27. Kim JY, Kim JH, Jee BC, Lee JR, Suh CS, Kim SH. Can intracytoplasmic sperm injection prevent total fertilization failure and enhance embryo quality in patients with non-male factor infertility? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;178:188–91.
28. van Rumste MME, Evers JLH, Farquhar CM. ICSI versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during IVF in patients with non-male factor subfertility: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):223–7.
29. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive M, Society for Assisted Reproductive T. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1395–9.
30. Borini A, Gambardella A, Bonu MA, Dal Prato L, Sciajno R, Bianchi L, et al. Comparison of IVF and ICSI when only few oocytes are available for insemination. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;19(2):270–5.
31. Luna M, Bigelow C, Duke M, Ruman J, Sandler B, Grunfeld L, et al. Should ICSI be recommended routinely in patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(10):911–5. doi:10.1007/s10815-011-9614-9. LA - English.
32. Ou YC, Lan KC, Huang FJ, Kung FT, Lan TH, Chang SY. Comparison of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in extremely low oocyte retrieval cycles. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(1):96–100.
33. Gozlan I, Dor A, Farber B, Meirow D, Feinstein S, Levron J. Comparing intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in patients with single oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):515–8.
34. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24.
35. World Health Organization. Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
36. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. 128 p.
37. Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Papanikolaou EG, Zorzovilis JZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT, et al. Flexible GnRH antagonist versus flare-up GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders treated by IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(6):1355–8.
38. Kolibianakis E, Zikopoulos K, Camus M, Tournaye H, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. Modified natural cycle for IVF does not offer a realistic chance of parenthood in poor responders with high day 3 FSH levels, as a last resort prior to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2545–9.
39. Kedem A, Tsur A, Haas J, Yerushalmi GM, Hourvitz A, Machtinger R, et al. Is the modified natural in vitro fertilization cycle justified in patients with “genuine” poor response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? Fertil Steril. 2014;101(6):1624–8.
40. Busnelli A, Papaleo E, Del Prato D, La Vecchia I, Iachini E, Paffoni A, et al. A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):315–22.
41. Polyzos NP, Blockeel C, Verpoest W, De Vos M, Stoop D, Vloeberghs V, et al. Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3481–6.
42. Polyzos NP, Nwoye M, Corona R, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Haentjens P, et al. Live birth rates in Bologna poor responders treated with ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28(4):469–74.
43. Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC, Repping S, Handyside A, Staessen C, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(11):3173–80.
44. Gutierrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sanchez-Garcia J, Escudero T, Prates R, Ketterson K, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):953–8.
45. Horcajadas JA, Pellicer A, Simon C. Wide genomic analysis of human endometrial receptivity: new times, new opportunities. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13(1):77–86.
46. Yoeli R, Orvieto R, Ashkenazi J, Shelef M, Ben-Rafael Z, Bar-Hava I. Comparison of embryo quality between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in sibling oocytes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(1):23–8.
47. Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. A review of ten years experience of ICSI. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(1):19–28.
48. Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, Deketelaere V, Derde M-P, Camus M, Devroey P, et al. Neonatal data on a cohort of 2889 infants born after ICSI (1991-1999) and of 2995 infants born after IVF (1983–1999). Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):671–94.
49. Bonduelle M, Ponjaert I, Steirteghem AV, Derde MP, Devroey P, Liebaers I. Developmental outcome at 2 years of age for children born after ICSI compared with children born after IVF. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(2):342–50.
50. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(19):1803–13.