Zygote intrafallopian transfer among patients with repeated implantation failure

Medical microrobots in reproductive medicine from the bench to the clinic

Medical microrobotics is an emerging field that aims at non-invasive diagnosis and therapy inside the human body through miniaturized sensors and actuators. Such microrobots can be tethered (e.g., smart microcatheters, microendoscopes) or untethered (e.g., cell-based drug delivery systems). Active motion and multiple functionalities, distinguishing microrobots from mere passive carriers and conventional nanomedicines, can be achieved through external control with physical fields such as magnetism or ultrasound. Here we give an overview of the key challenges in the field of assisted reproduction and how these new technologies could, in the future, enable assisted fertilization in vivo and enhance embryo implantation. As a case study, we describe a potential intervention in the case of recurrent embryo implantation failure, which involves the non-invasive delivery of an early embryo back to the fertilization site using magnetically-controlled microrobots. As the embryo will be in contact with the secretory oviduct fluid, it can develop under natural conditions and in synchrony with the endometrium preparation. We discuss the potential microrobot designs, including a proper selection of materials and processes, envisioning their translation from bench to animal studies and human medicine. Finally, we highlight regulatory and ethical considerations for bringing this technology to the clinic.

Zygote intrafallopian tube transfer versus intrauterine cleavage or blastocyst stage transfer after intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in patients with repeated implantation failure: A prospective follow-up study

AIM

This study aimed to compare the outcomes between zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) with intrauterine day-3 (cleavage stage) embryo transfer and intrauterine day-5 (blastocyst stage) embryo transfer in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study was performed at Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, between January 2012 and January 2014. Two hundred fifty women with more than three unexplained implantation failures were divided non-randomly into three groups according to embryonic age and methods used as follows: (i) intrauterine cleavage-stage embryo transfer (n = 100); (ii) intrauterine blastocyst-stage embryo transfer (n = 50); and (iii) ZIFT (n = 100). Implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates were our main outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients' characteristics and ovarian response were comparable among the three groups. Implantation rate (56.1% vs 27.9%) was significantly higher in the blastocyst group as compared to the ZIFT group; however, clinical pregnancy rate (38% vs 23%) was not statistically significantly different between the two groups, but due to the significantly higher miscarriage rate (34.7% vs 5.3%) in the ZIFT group, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the blastocyst group (P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage groups in terms of implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates.

CONCLUSION

We do not recommend the use of the ZIFT procedure for patients with repeated implantation failures. It seems that replication of cleavage- or blastocyst-stage embryo transfer is more efficient and affordable.

Advanced scheduling for zygote intrafallopian transfer is possible via the use of a hormone replacement cycle for patients who have experienced repeated implantation failures

PURPOSE

Zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) is an effective option for patients who have experienced repeated implantation failures (RIF) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. However, advance planning for the day of the operation can be problematic. Using a hormone replacement cycle (HRC) makes it possible to plan for the day of ZIFT. In the present study, we evaluated whether HRC-ZIFT is useful for RIF patients who have experienced difficulties obtaining morphologically good embryos in vitro.

METHODS

A total of 55 patients with a history of five or more unsuccessful transfers received HRC-ZIFT between June 2008 and June 2013. The oocyte pick-ups were performed and the oocytes showing two pronuclei (2PN) were cryopreserved. After receiving more than five 2PN oocytes, the operation day was scheduled in advance, and as a consequence, a HRC was started and ZIFT was performed. The clinical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The average age of the patients was 39.3 years, and the previous OPU and ET attempts numbered 7.5 and 6.9, respectively. The number of previously transferred embryos was 11.8, and the number of morphologically good embryos (MGEs) was only 1.2. The number of transferred 2PN oocytes was 6.7, and the subsequent pregnancy rate was 23.6 %. No ectopic or multiple pregnancies were observed, but there were 6 cases of miscarriage.

CONCLUSION

Among RIF patients, in particular those who have difficulty obtaining MGEs in vitro, ZIFT might be a useful option. The HRC allows patients and medical staff to plan for the operation day in advance.

Should zygote intrafallopian transfer be offered to all patients with unexplained repeated in-vitro fertilization cycle failures?

BACKGROUND

One of the suggest strategy for patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF) is zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT). However, no data exist regarding to the issue of when and under which circumstances should ZIFT be offered to patients with RIF? We therefore aimed to examine whether repeated implantation failure (RIF) patients characteristics or their previous controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) variables may differentiate between those who will conceive following a ZIFT cycle and those who will not.

METHODS

Forty seven consecutive women admitted to our IVF unit during a 7 year period, who underwent ZIFT for RIF, were included. Ovarian stimulation characteristics, number of oocytes retrieved and number and quality of zygotes/embryos transferred were assessed and compared between the ZIFT cycle and the previous IVF/ICSI cycle and between those who conceived following the ZIFT cycle and those who did not.

RESULTS

Twelve clinical pregnancies (clinical pregnancy rate- 25.5%) were recorded following the ZIFT cycle. Those who benefit from ZIFT were young patients (≤31 yrs), who underwent ≤6 cycle attempts, yielding over eight 2PN embryos with low (≤0.4) ratio of number of top-quality embryos to total 2PN embryos. Moreover, in those destined for a ZIFT cycle, only those with >7 2PN embryo should undergo a transfer of at least five 2PN embryos.

CONCLUSIONS

Further large prospective studies are needed to identify the specific characteristics of RIF women who may benefit from ZIFT.