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

Efficacy of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with non-male factor infertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has dramatically increased in patients with non-male factor infertility during the last decades. However, whether ICSI provides a significant benefit over in vitro fertilization (IVF) in these patients is still controversial. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of ICSI on reproductive outcomes with non-male factor infertility and to provide updated evidence for clinical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy between ICSI and IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility were included. The main outcomes were the live birth rate (LBR), fertilization rate (FR), and total fertilization failure (TFF). The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023427004).

RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with 3249 cycles and 30 994 oocytes. The results demonstrated that ICSI reduced the risk of TFF (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.13-0.50, I2  = 58%) and increased FR per oocyte inseminated/injected (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.20, I2  = 69%), but it did not improve LBR (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.94-1.30, I2  = 0%) or other outcomes compared with IVF. However, the difference in fertilization failure reduction between ICSI and IVF may be explained by different randomization methods (randomization based on patients vs. sibling oocytes). When considering only studies with randomization based on patients, we found no evidence of the difference between the groups (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48-1.06, I2  = 0%). Furthermore, no differences were observed in subgroup analyses based on other factors, including female age, study period, and controlled ovarian stimulation protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that ICSI leads to no difference in reproductive outcomes compared to IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility. Considering the cost and safety of ICSI, we have no evidence to support the routine use of ICSI in these populations. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes will be needed to confirm our results and explore clinical and neonatal outcomes.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs. in-vitro fertilization in couples in whom the male partners had a semen analysis within normal reference ranges: An open debate

During recent decades, the application of intracytoplasmic sperm injection has increased considerably worldwide, especially in couples with non-male factor infertility. However, several studies analyzing the broad use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection, even in cases with a normal semen analysis, have collectively demonstrated no benefits compared to conventional in-vitro fertilization. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support the intracytoplasmic sperm injection technique vs. in-vitro fertilization in cases of poor ovarian response or a low number of oocytes collected, or in patients with advanced maternal age. Since the intracytoplasmic sperm injection technique is more operator-dependent and invasive, its use should only be recommended in cases of male-factor infertility. There is some evidence showing that intracytoplasmic sperm injection is linked with an increased risk of birth defects. Albeit this evidence is limited, and currently it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on these concerns, we do believe that these risks should be rigorously investigated. Thus, this review aims to clarify the debate on the application of the intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedure, as compared to standard in-vitro fertilization, in those assisted reproductive technology cycles without a clear male factor infertility. Furthermore, we try to clarify whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection would result in a higher live birth rate than in-vitro fertilization, in couples with non-male factor infertility.

Considerations on staffing levels for a modern assisted reproductive laboratory

The duties recently performed in the embryology laboratory have deeply increased compared to those realized a couple of decades ago. Currently, procedures include conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and ICSI techniques, or processing of surgically retrieved sperm, embryo culture and time-lapse monitoring, blastocyst culture, as well as trophectoderm biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing and cryopreservation. These techniques require not only time, but also high knowledge level and acutely concentration by the embryologist team. The existing data indicate that an IVF laboratory need to have adequate staffing levels to perform the required daily duties, and to work in optimal conditions that are critical to assure a high quality service, as well as avoiding incidents and to provide the best outcomes. As a result, IVF clinics have invested in human resources, but there is still a large discrepancy between IVF centres on the number of embryologists employed. Currently there is no golden standard on the human resource requirements for assisted reproductive technology procedures; therefore, in this review paper we aim to provide arguments to take into account to determine the embryology staffing requirements in an embryology laboratory to assure optimal safety and efficiency of operations.

The impact of medical therapies and factors related to treatment procedures in women with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease receiving assisted reproduction: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether medications used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or factors related to the assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures, impact the success of ART. In women with RA/IBD, initial studies have shown a reduced chance of a live-born child after ART.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Nationwide Danish health registries.

PATIENTS

All Danish women with a fresh embryo transfer from January 1, 2006, through 2018. The cohorts comprised 1,824 embryo transfers in women with RA/IBD and 97,191 embryo transfers in women without RA/IBD.

INTERVENTIONS

Observational, noninterventional study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Live birth per fresh embryo transfer.

RESULTS

The chance of a live birth in women with RA/IBD receiving ART, compared with other women receiving ART, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.91). Prescribed corticosteroids before embryo transfer were positively associated with a live-born child (adjusted OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.31), while the use of antiinflammatory/immunosuppressive agents did not have significant importance. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was associated with a reduced chance (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97). Type of hormone treatment protocol did not have significant importance, and transfer at the blastocyst stage was positively associated with a live-born child (adjusted OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

In women with RA and/or IBD, prescribed corticosteroid before embryo transfer and embryo transfer at the blastocyst stage were associated with successful ART. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was associated with a slightly reduced chance. Antiinflammatory/immunosuppressive agents and type of hormone protocols did not have significant importance.

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

INTRODUCTION

Over 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 ANALYSIS

This 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 DISSEMINATION

The 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 NUMBER

NCT04128904. Pre-results.

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

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.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)

STUDY QUESTION

Does the insemination method impact the euploidy outcome in couples with non-male factor infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Conventional IVF can be applied in cycles with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), as both IVF and ICSI generate equal numbers of euploid blastocysts.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Ever since its introduction, the popularity of ICSI has increased tremendously, even in couples with non-male factor infertility. The use of conventional IVF is a contraindication for couples undergoing PGT to ensure monospermic fertilisation and to eliminate potential paternal contamination from extraneous sperm attached to the zona pellucida. Despite this, it has recently been shown that sperm DNA fails to amplify under the conditions used for trophectoderm biopsy samples.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This single-centre prospective pilot study included 30 couples between November 2018 and April 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD

Arab couples, with a female age between 18-40 years, body mass index ≤30 kg/m2, at least 10 cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) following oocyte retrieval (OR) and normal semen concentration and motility (WHO) in the fresh ejaculate on the day of OR, were eligible for the study. Half of the sibling oocytes were assigned to conventional IVF, and the other half were assigned to ICSI. All embryos were cultured in a time-lapse imaging system in Global Total LP media. Blastocysts were subjected to trophectoderm biopsy on Day 5, 6 or 7 and next-generation sequencing (NGS) to determine blastocyst ploidy status. The primary objective was to determine the euploid rate in blastocysts from sibling oocytes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 568 COCs were randomly allocated between IVF (n = 283; 9.4 ± 4.0) and ICSI (n = 285; 9.5 ± 4.1). While the incidence of normal fertilisation per cycle (6.1 ± 3.8 (64.0%) vs 6.3 ± 3.5 (65.4%); P = 0.609) was distributed equally between IVF and ICSI, the degeneration rate (0.1 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.8; P = 0.0003) was significantly higher after ICSI and the incidence of abnormal fertilisation (≥3 pronuclei) was significantly higher after IVF (0.9 ± 1.2 vs 0.2 ± 0.4; P = 0.005). For all fertilised oocytes, there were no differences in the number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 (74% vs 78%; P = 0.467), nor in the blastulation rate on Day 5 (80.4% vs 70.8%; P = 0.076). The total number of blastocysts biopsied per cycle on Days 5, 6 and 7 was not significantly different between IVF or ICSI (4.0 ± 2.8 vs 3.9 ± 2.5; P = 0.774). With euploid rates of 49.8 and 44.1% (P = 0.755; OR: 1.05664 [0.75188-1.48494), respectively, there was no significant difference identified between IVF and ICSI (2.0 ± 1.8 vs 1.9 ± 1.7; P = 0.808) and all couples had at least one euploid blastocyst available for transfer. When considering only euploid blastocysts, the male/female ratio was 61/39 in IVF and 43/57 in ICSI (P = 0.063).

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

This is a pilot study with a limited patient population of 30 couples (and 568 COCs) with a normal ovarian response. The results of our study should not be extrapolated to other patient populations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

It is safe to apply conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility undergoing PGT-A.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was obtained. There are no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03708991.

Thoughts on the popularity of ICSI

Purpose

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is the most widely utilized assisted reproductive technique (ART) worldwide. In this feature, we review the early assisted fertilization attempts that eventually led to the development of ICSI, and discuss its current utilization in cases of male and non-male factor infertility.

Methods

We researched the literature related to the development, indications, and current use of ICSI, such as sperm structural abnormalities, male genetic indications, surgically retrieved sperm, high sperm chromatin fragmentation, oocyte dysmorphism, and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). We also describe the potential future applications of ICSI.

Results

This review summarizes the early micromanipulation techniques that led to the inception of ICSI. We also explore its current indications, including non-male factor infertility, where its use is more controversial. Finally, we consider the benefits of future advancements in reproductive biology that may incorporate ICSI, such as in vitro spermatogenesis, neogametogenesis, and heritable genome editing.

Conclusion

The versatility, consistency, and reliability of ICSI have made it the most prevalently utilized ART procedure worldwide.

ALWAYS ICSI? A SWOT analysis

PURPOSE

Intracytroplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) is a common procedure used to improve reproductive results, even among couples without male factor infertility. However, the evidence available is still uncertain on the possible advantages and deficiencies that this procedure may have in patients with no formal indication for ICSI.

METHODS

A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis examines the possible advantages and deficiencies of performing ICSI in these patients with no formal indication.

RESULTS

The evidence suggests that ICSI is not justified for non-male factor infertile couples requiring in vitro conception. One of the major strengths associated to the procedure is the virtual elimination of cases further complicated by total fertilization failure and a combination between IVF and ICSI on sibling oocytes has been advised in the literature. Greater technical difficulties, higher costs and performing an unnecessary invasive technique in some cases represent some of the weaknesses of the procedure, and questions regarding safety issues should not be ruled out.

CONCLUSION

Despite the widespread use of ICSI in patients without a formal diagnosis of male factor infertility, evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in this population is still lacking. Additional large and well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify definitive indications for ICSI in non-male factor infertility.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, while typically effective for overcoming low or absent fertilization in couples with a clear abnormality of semen parameters, is frequently used in combination with assisted reproductive technologies for other etiologies of infertility in the presence of semen parameters that meet the World Health Organization 2010 normative reference values. This committee opinion provides a critical review of the literature, where available, to identify situations where this may or may not be of benefit. This document replaces the previously published document of the same name, last published in 2012 (Fertil Steril 2012;98:1395-9).

Higher clinical pregnancy rate with in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in treatment of non-male factor infertility: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence about in-vitro fertilization (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for the treatment of non-male factor infertility.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases searched using the following MeSH terms (Sperm Injection, Intracytoplasmic) AND (in Vitro Fertilisation) AND (Infertility).

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

All RCTs included infertile patients due to non-male factors underwent IVF or ICSI were considered for this meta-analysis. One-thousand twenty-two studies were identified of which 20 studies deemed eligible for this review.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three independent authors extracted the relevant data from included studies. The study outcomes were pooled in the form of relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) using Mantel-Hansel method. The main outcome measures are the fertilization rate, the implantation rate, the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), the total fertilization failure and the live birth rate.

RESULTS

Regarding the fertilization rate, the pooled estimate did not favour either IVF or ICSI group (RR = 0.94; 95 %CI [0.82, 1.07]; p = 0.34). However, IVF significantly increased the CPR than ICSI (RR = 1.28, 95 %CI [1.11, 1.49]; p = 0.001). The overall effect estimate did not favor either of two groups regarding the implantation rate (RR = 1.25, 95 % CI [0.92, 1.68], p = 0.15). Similarly, no difference between both groups regarding the live birth rate (RR = 1.08, 95 % CI [0.79, 1.49]; p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference between ICSI and IVF regarding fertilization rate per oocytes, implantation rate and live birth rate in the treatment of non-male factor infertility, while IVF has significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate and higher risk of total fertilization failure.

Use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in normospermic men may result in lower clinical pregnancy and live birth rates

BACKGROUND

While intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was developed for overcoming male infertility, it is increasingly being used for non-male factor indications, without consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of this approach.

AIMS

To determine whether ICSI offers any benefit compared to standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF), in the setting of normal semen parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of reproductive outcomes in 3363 stimulated cycles (IVF = 1661; ICSI = 1702), in patients treated between 2009-2015, was performed. Selected couples had no male factor infertility. Couples with abnormal semen parameters (based on WHO 2010 guidelines), presence of anti-sperm antibodies and low oocyte yield of ≤4 oocytes, were excluded. The outcomes analysed included: (1) fertilisation rate (FR); (2) clinical pregnancy rate (CPR); and (3) live birth rate (LBR), by method of fertilisation used (IVF vs ICSI) and controlling for significant confounders.

RESULTS

FR, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in the IVF group compared with ICSI (67.1% vs 62.3%, 23.06% vs 16.8%, 17.22% vs 13.2%, respectively). Pregnancy rate with ICSI was approximately 30% lower than with IVF, even when controlling for significant factors such as day of embryo transfer and number of embryos transferred. This translates to one less pregnancy in every 15 cycles where ICSI was used without clear indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that ICSI may be detrimental to clinical outcomes and contributes to the wider understanding of use of ICSI in normospermic men.

Are we Justified Doing Routine Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Nonmale Factor Infertility? A Retrospective Study Comparing Reproductive Outcomes between In vitro Fertilization and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Nonmale Factor Infertility

Introduction:

Intracytoplasmic sperm insemination (ICSI) came into use in 1992 to improve fertilization in couples with male factor infertility undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or in couples with fertilization failure in a prior IVF cycle. Our aim was to find out if routine ICSI has any additional benefit over conventional IVF in non male factor cases in modern Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).

Methods:

This is a retrospective single centre study undertaken at a private IVF center. A total of 350 patients with normal male factor were included in the study of which 186 underwent conventional IVF and 134 were subjected to ICSI. They were then compared for various reproductive parameters with Live Birth Rate (LBR) being the primary outcome. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Fertilization rates (89.99% vs 85.1%), Blastocyst formation rates (62.86% vs 50.61%) and clinical pregnancy rates (37.85% vs 32.35%) were found to be higher in the IVF group compared to the ICSI group though not statistically significant. The live birth rates in the IVF group was also higher than the ICSI group (32.71% vs 24.26%).

Conclusion:

IVF edged over ICSI in all aspects resulting in better clinical outcome with higher take home babies in non-male factor infertility. Our results show that routine ICSI should not be used as a blanket therapy for all cases in ART.

The Effect of Assisted Hatching on Live Birth Rate Following Fresh Embryo Transfer in Advanced Maternal Age

OBJECTIVE

Assisted hatching (AH) was introduced 3 decades ago as an adjunct method to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer (ET) to improve embryo implantation rate. Limited data are available on the effect of AH on live birth rate (LBR) in advanced maternal age. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of AH on LBR in women aged 40 years and older.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study conducted at a single academic reproductive center. Women aged ≥40 years, who were undergoing their first IVF cycle were included. Laser-assisted hatching was the method used for AH and single or double embryos were transferred. Embryo transfer was performed at the cleavage or blastocyst stage. Separate analysis was performed on each ET stage. Live birth rate was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 892 patients were included. Of these, 681 women underwent cleavage ET and 211 underwent blastocyst ET. The clinical pregnancy rate in the entire group was 15.3% and the LBR was 10.2%. Baseline and cycle parameters between the AH group and the control group were comparable. Assisted hatching in the cleavage stage was associated with lower clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.86; P = .012) and lower LBR (OR, 0.36; CI, 0.19-0.68; P = .001). Assisted hatching did not have any effect on outcomes in blastocyst ET.

CONCLUSION

Assisted hatching does not improve the reproductive outcomes in advanced maternal age. Performing routine AH for the sole indication of advanced maternal age is not clinically justified.

Dielectrophoretic Microfluidic Device for in Vitro Fertilization

The aim of this work was to create a microfluidic platform that uses in vitro fertilization (IVF) and avoids unnecessary damage to oocytes due to the dielectrophoretic force manipulation of the sperms and oocytes that occurs in a traditional IVF operation. The device from this research can serve also to decrease medium volumes, as well as the cost of cell culture under evaporation, and to prevent unnecessary risk in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). To decrease the impact and destruction of the oocyte and the sperm, we adopted a positive dielectrophoretic force to manipulate both the sperms and the oocyte. The mouse oocytes were trapped with a positive dielectrophoretic (p-DEP) force by using Indium Tin Oxide (ITO)-glass electrodes; the ITO-glass electrode chip was fabricated by wet etching the ITO-glass. The polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) flow-focusing microfluidic device was used to generate microdroplets of micrometer size to contain the zygotes. The volume of the microdroplets was controlled by adjusting the flow rates of both inlets for oil and the DEP buffer. As a result, the rate of fertilization was increased by about 5% beyond that of the DEP treatment in traditional IVF, and more than 20% developed to the blastocyst stage with a low sperm-oocyte ratio.

Is there a reason to perform ICSI in the absence of male factor? Lessons from the Latin American Registry of ART

Study question

Does the use of ICSI offer any outcome advantage over IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility?

Summary answer

We did not find any outcome improvement that justifies the routine use of ICSI over IVF in non-male factor ART cycles.

What is already known

Since its introduction in Latin America, the use of ICSI has increased substantially, even among patients without male factor infertility. However, it is not clear whether ICSI provides an advantage over IVF in non-male factor infertility.

Study design size duration

A retrospective cohort study of fresh cycles performed in 155 ART clinics located in 15 Latin American countries between 2012 and 2014. Records were assessed for 49,813 ART cycles (39,564 ICSI and 10,249 IVF) performed in infertile couples who did not have male factor infertility. Student's t-test was used to analyze normally distributed data, Wilcoxon test to analyze non-normally distributed data, and Fisher's exact test for categorical data. Logistic regression was used to quantify the effect of ICSI on delivery rate, adjusting for age of female partner, number of oocytes inseminated, number of embryos transferred, and transfer at blastocyst stage as possible confounding factors. Poisson regression analysis was used to quantify the effect of ICSI on fertilization rate, adjusting for age of female partner.

Participants/materials setting method

Cycles with the diagnosis of male factor and use of cryopreserved semen and with a freeze-all strategy were excluded.

Main results and the role of chance

After correcting for age of female partner, number of oocytes inseminated, number of embryos transferred and transfer at blastocyst stage, we found that the use of ICSI was associated with a significant decrease in the odds of delivery compared to IVF (odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.93; P < 0.0001).

Limitations reasons for caution

An important limitation of this study is the lack of randomization owing to its retrospective nature. This could result in selection bias, i.e. couples with the worst prognosis undergoing ICSI, or patients with a history of fertilization failure in IVF cycles undergoing ICSI. More than one cycle from the same couple may be included in the study.

Wider implications of the findings

The lack of an outcome benefit-and, indeed, a reduced likelihood of delivery-following ICSI in non-male factor infertile couples suggests that ICSI may not be the most appropriate clinical approach in these patients.

Study funding/competing interests

None.

Use of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection and Birth Outcomes in Women Conceiving through In Vitro Fertilization

BACKGROUND

Despite questionable evidence of benefits over conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) use has markedly increased in recent decades among couples without male factor infertility. We assessed the frequency of ICSI use and its effect on birth outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 141 030 women conceiving through IVF using 2006-2010 data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART).

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2010, overall ICSI use in women conceiving through IVF increased from 68.9% to 73.1%. This increase was greater among women without male factor infertility (53.0-59.2%) than in women with male factor infertility (92.0-93.4%). Women conceiving through IVF with and without ICSI had similar rates of multiple pregnancy, preterm delivery, stillbirth, and neonatal death. However, ICSI pregnancies were associated with an increased risk of birth defects over conventional IVF (3.0% for ICSI vs. 2.5% for conventional IVF; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 1.3). These increases were observed in both women conceiving through ICSI with male factor infertility (3.2% vs. 2.5%; OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.3, 1.5) and without male factor infertility (2.7% vs. 2.5%; OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.1, 1.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher rates of birth defects were observed among women conceiving through ICSI. Since approximately half of all ICSI procedures are performed in couples without male factor infertility, ICSI may be overused in practice.

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency. IUI versus TI (five RCTs)Two RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).Three RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I(2) = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.One RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available. IUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. IVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.Overall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.There were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is needed.

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

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection

IMPORTANCE

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).

OBJECTIVE

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.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION

Retrospective cohort study using data on fresh IVF and ICSI cycles reported to the US National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System during 1996-2012.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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.

Can intracytoplasmic sperm injection prevent total fertilization failure and enhance embryo quality in patients with non-male factor infertility?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) could prevent total fertilization failure (TFF) and enhance the embryo quality in patients with non-male factor infertility.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 296 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles performed in patients with non-male factor infertility between April 2009 and March 2013 were included in this retrospective study. During the period, ICSI and conventional IVF were performed in 142 and 154 cycles, respectively. The usual indications for ICSI were in the cycles of patients with (1) known low fertilization rate, (2) repetitive implantation failure, (3) advanced maternal age, (4) presence of endometrioma, (5) low oocyte yield (number of oocytes ≤3), or (6) poor quality oocytes. The rate of TFF, normal fertilization, abnormal pronuclei (PN) formation, embryo quality, and pregnancy outcomes between the patients treated with ICSI and conventional IVF cycles were compared.

RESULTS

The patients treated with ICSI (ICSI group, n=142) presented fewer number of oocytes than patients treated with conventional IVF cycles (n=154). The TFF rate was not different (4.2% vs. 0.6%, P=0.059), but the ICSI group presented a significantly higher rate of normal fertilization (83.4% vs. 79.1%, P=0.04) and lower rate of abnormal PN formation (3.9% vs. 13.3%, P<0.01). The cleavage stage embryo quality was better in the ICSI group (grade A: 31.1% vs. 21.3%, P=0.001; grade A+B: 65.1% vs. 47.6%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The result of this study does not support the use of ICSI to prevent TFF in patients with non-male factor infertility. However, ICSI improved the fertilization rate and the embryo quality.

Conventional IVF as a laboratory strategy to rescue fertility potential in severe poor responder patients: the impact of reproductive aging

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether laboratory strategies can improve in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome in poor responder patients. We compared the effectiveness of conventional IVF and intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in assisted reproductive technologies cycles in which only one or two oocytes were retrieved at ovarian pick up, in the absence of male infertility.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of 425 cycles in 386 poor responder patients.

INTERVENTION(S)

Standard stimulation protocol with gonadotropins and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Fertilization rate, cleavage rate, good-quality embryo rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate (PR) and miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

IVF was found to be more advantageous for implantation and PR, especially in patients under 35 years and in women aged between 35 and 38 years. No differences were noted in the other parameter evaluated. Patients aged over 38 years showed no difference using the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

The employment of ICSI in the absence of a male factor can reduce reproductive outcome in poor responder. Probably because of aging-related defects overcoming the advantage of sperm selection, the choice of IVF technique is not relevant to reproductive success when oocyte quality is compromised by reproductive aging. Although further randomized trials are needed to confirm our results, we propose that, in absence of male infertility, conventional IVF might be the technique of choice in young patients, especially in those aged below 35 years.

Should few retrieved oocytes be as an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection?

OBJECTIVE

To reevaluate whether relatively few oocytes obtained in one cycle are an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

METHODS

A total of 406 cycles with three or fewer retrieved oocytes performed in 396 non-male infertile couples were retrospectively reviewed. Cycles were classified into three groups by different fertilization techniques: the in vitro fertilization (IVF) group, insemination with conventional IVF; the ICSI group, insemination with ICSI though semen parameters were normal; and the rescue ICSI group, re-insemination with ICSI after conventional IVF failure.

RESULTS

The ICSI group resulted in higher normal fertilization compared with the conventional IVF group. Correspondingly, the cycle cancellation rate was decreased in the ICSI group, though it was not statistically significant. The clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were lower in the ICSI group compared with the conventional IVF group. Rescue ICSI was a method to avert total fertilization failure in conventional IVF, increasing fertilization and ensuring embryo availability for transfer, but the normal fertilization was the lowest due to delayed insemination and the chance of pregnancy was very little.

CONCLUSIONS

Obtaining only few oocytes in one cycle is not considered as an indication for ICSI when the sperm sample is apparently normal. Rescue ICSI is either not recommended if conventional insemination fails. Such patients should not be subjected to the unnecessary costs and potential risks of ICSI.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, while typically effective for overcoming low or absent fertilization in couples with a clear abnormality of semen parameters, is frequently utilized in combination with assisted reproductive technologies for other etiologies of infertility in the presence of normal semen parameters. This committee opinion provides a critical review of the literature, where available, to identify situations where this may or may not be of benefit.

Should ICSI be recommended routinely in patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved?

PURPOSE

To determine if patients with a low response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF benefit from intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 350 IVF cycles in which four or fewer oocytes were retrieved. Severe male factor cases were excluded from analysis. Conventional insemination (CI) and ICSI were compared, with primary outcome measures of fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer, and pregnancy loss rate.

RESULT(S)

Fertilization rates per oocyte retrieved for CI and ICSI were comparable (51.5% vs. 51.8%). Parallel implantation rates (22% vs. 25%), clinical pregnancy rates (32.8% vs. 33.3%), and loss rates (26.7% vs. 39.5%) were also noted. No difference in cancelled cycles was reported.

CONCLUSION(S)

Our results demonstrate that in the presence of normal semen parameters, low egg number is not an indication to perform ICSI.

Re-evaluation of post-wash sperm is a helpful tool in the decision to perform in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection

The aim of this study was to find discriminatory parameters, based on sperm characteristics on the day of ovum pickup, that can help guide the decision to perform either intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF). We evaluated 112 cycles fertilised with both regular and ICSI insemination during the same cycle. A total of 112 cycles were analysed. In 62 cycles, fertilisation was obtained with both ICSI and IVF, and in 50 cycles, fertilisation was obtained by ICSI alone. The sperm samples were re-evaluated after the preparation process. The mean initial total motile sperm count (TMSC) was 66.3 × 10(6) ± 47.5 in the group that underwent both methods and 23.1 × 10(6) ± 20.4 in the ICSI only group (P < 0.05). After sperm preparation, the mean post-wash TMSC was 4.4 × 10(6) ± 3.4 and 1.06 × 10(6) ± 0.9 respectively (P < 0.05). A cutoff of 1.5 × 10(6) or fewer sperm after preparation as an indicator for ICSI has a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 77%. Re-evaluation of TMSC can prevent unexpected fertilisation failure. Fewer than 1.5 million TMSC after wash should be considered an indication for ICSI fertilisation.

[Assisted reproductive technologies place]

There are three kinds of infertility treatment: medical treatment, surgical treatment and assisted reproductive technology (ART). ART includes intra uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). ART technologies made a lot of progress last years and their field of applications extended. Through literature reviews, IUI is recommended for unexplained infertility and discussed for male or cervical infertility. IVF is recommended for tubal and unexplained infertility. Limits between IVF and ICSI in case of male infertility remains unclear. In non mal infertility ICSI is not recommended.

Comparison of IVF and ICSI when only few oocytes are available for insemination

The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficiency of IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) when few eggs available for insemination. A total of 601 women (group A, mean age 31.2 +/- 2.8 years) who were undergoing a total of 671 assisted reproduction cycles donated their excess oocytes to 694 patients (group B, mean age 41.0 +/- 0.2) for 1606 replacement cycles. Each recipient received three to five eggs. The recipients were divided into two groups depending on the insemination method used (IVF, group B1; or ICSI, group B2); ICSI patients were then subdivided into two further groups based on the semen parameters: B2A adequate for IVF and B2B only suitable for ICSI. The results showed that, when comparing A versus B and B1 versus B2, no significant differences were found in terms of pregnancy (28.0 versus 24.1% and 25.5 versus 21.4%), implantation (15.6 versus 14.9% and 15.9 versus 13.1%) and miscarriage (15.4 versus 20.5% and 17.9 versus 26.3) rates respectively. Comparing subgroups B2A and B2B, no significant differences were found in terms of pregnancy (20.0 versus 21.9%), implantation (14.4 versus 12.7%) and miscarriage rates (18.2 versus 28.6%) respectively. In conclusion, ICSI does not seem to yield better outcomes.