Conventional insemination versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Effectivity of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) when male factor is absent: a perspective point of view

An objective and individualized approach of in vitro fertilization techniques tends to decrease costs and improve the experience of infertile couples during treatment. The use of available technologies to diagnose and treat infertility based on scientific evidence seems to be the best practice, which is the guideline that motivates this review on the available techniques for laboratory oocyte insemination. Conventional IVF, the pioneering technique, was initially used in the treatment of tubal obstruction infertility, successfully expanding the treatment of infertile couples presenting with several other factors. However, it was less effective in cases of severe male factor infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, which was developed in 1992, proved to be the method of choice for treating couples with severe male factor infertility. Since then, it has been increasingly used regardless of the infertility factor. This review discusses the effectiveness of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) when the male factor is absent in all aspects, as technical and clinical outcomes, associated risks, adjustments for using with other technologies and costs. Finally we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each one, with all aspects reviewed.

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).

ICSI does not improve reproductive outcomes in autologous ovarian response cycles with non-male factor subfertility

STUDY QUESTION

Does the method of fertilisation improve reproductive outcomes in poor ovarian response (POR) cycles when compared to all other ovarian response categories in the absence of male factor subfertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

ICSI does not confer any benefit in improving the clinical pregnancy or live birth (LB) outcome in autologous ovarian response cycles in the absence of male factor subfertility when compared to IVF.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

ICSI is associated with an improved outcome when compared to IVF in patients with severe male factor subfertility.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A retrospective study involving 1 376 454 ART cycles, of which 569 605 (41.4%) cycles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria for all autologous ovarian response categories: 272 433 (47.8%) IVF cycles and 297 172 (52.2%) ICSI cycles. Of these, the POR cohort represented 62 641 stimulated fresh cycles (11.0%): 33 436 (53.4%) IVF cycles and 29 205 (46.6%) ICSI cycles.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD

All cycles recorded on the anonymised Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) registry database between 1991 and 2016 were analysed. All fresh cycles with normal sperm parameters, performed after 1998 were included: frozen cycles, donor oocyte and sperm usage, intrauterine insemination cycles, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for aneuploidies (PGT-A), PGT for monogenic/single gene defects (PGT-M), PGT for chromosomal structural arrangements (PGT-SR) cycles, where the reason for stimulation was for storage and unstimulated cycles were excluded.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

ICSI did not confer any benefit in improving the LB outcome when compared to conventional IVF per treatment cycle (PTC), when adjusted for female age, number of previous ART treatment cycles, number of previous live births through ART, oocyte yield, stage of transfer, method of fertilisation and number of embryos transferred in the POR cohort (adjusted odds ratio [a OR] 1.03, 99.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.96–1.11, P = 0.261) and all autologous ovarian response categories (aOR 1.00, 99.5% CI 0.98–1.02, P = 0.900). The mean fertilisation rate was statistically lower for IVF treatment cycles (64.7%) when compared to ICSI treatment cycles (67.2%) in the POR cohort (mean difference −2.5%, 99.5% CI −3.3 to −1.6, P < 0.001). The failed fertilisation rate was marginally higher in IVF treatment cycles (17.3%, 95% binomial exact 16.9 to 17.7%) when compared to ICSI treatment cycles (17.0%, 95% binomial exact 16.6 to 17.4%); however, this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.199). The results followed a similar trend when analysed for all autologous ovarian response categories with a higher rate of failed fertilisation in IVF treatment cycles (4.8%, 95% binomial exact 4.7 to 4.9%) when compared to ICSI treatment cycles (3.2%, 95% binomial exact 3.1 to 3.3%) (P < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The quality of data is reliant on the reporting system. Furthermore, success rates through ART have improved since 1991, with an increased number of blastocyst-stage embryo transfers. The inability to link the treatment cycle to the individual patient meant that we were unable to calculate the cumulative LB outcome per patient.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the largest study to date which evaluates the impact of method of fertilisation in the POR patient and compares this to all autologous ovarian response categories. The results demonstrate that ICSI does not confer any benefit in improving reproductive outcomes in the absence of male factor subfertility, with no improvement seen in the clinical pregnancy or LB outcomes following a fresh treatment cycle.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study received no funding. C.M.B. is a member of the independent data monitoring group for a clinical endometriosis trial by ObsEva. He is on the scientific advisory board for Myovant and medical advisory board for Flo Health. He has received research grants from Bayer AG, MDNA Life Sciences, Volition Rx and Roche Diagnostics as well as from Wellbeing of Women, Medical Research Council UK, the NIH, the UK National Institute for Health Research and the European Union. He is the current Chair of the Endometriosis Guideline Development Group for ESHRE and was a co-opted member of the Endometriosis Guideline Group by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). I.G. has received research grants from Bayer AG, Wellbeing of Women, the European Union and Finox.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

ICSI Versus Conventional IVF in Women Aged 40 Years or More and Unexplained Infertility: A Retrospective Evaluation of 685 Cycles with Propensity Score Model

This study compared the cumulative live birth rates following Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) versus conventional in vitro fertilization (cIVF) in women aged 40 years or more and unexplained infertility. A cohort of 685 women undergoing either autologous conventional IVF or ICSI was retrospectively analyzed. The effects of conventional IVF or ICSI procedure on cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates were evaluated in univariate and in multivariable analysis. In order to reduce potential differences between women undergoing either IVF or ICSI and to obtain unbiased estimation of the treatment effect, propensity score was estimated. ICSI was performed in 307 couples (ICSI group), whereas cIVF was performed in 297 couples (cIVF group), resulting in 45 and 43 live deliveries, respectively. No differences were observed in morphological embryo quality, in the number of cleavage stage embryos, in the number of transferred embryos, and in the number of vitrified embryos. As for the clinical outcome, no differences were observed in pregnancy rate, cumulative pregnancy rate, live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and abortion rate. The present results suggest that ICSI is not associated with increased likelihood of a live birth for unexplained, non-male factor infertility, in women aged 40 years or more.

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.

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.

Trends in the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the United States

BACKGROUND

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was initially developed as part of in vitro fertilization (IVF) to treat male-factor infertility. However, despite the added cost, uncertain efficacy, and potential risks of ICSI, its use has been extended to include some patients without documented male-factor infertility.

METHODS

We analyzed national data on assisted reproductive technology reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to determine temporal trends in the use of ICSI and IVF in the United States, and we examined differences in the use of ICSI between states with and those without mandated insurance coverage.

RESULTS

From 1995 to 2004, the number of fertility clinics and fresh-embryo cycles and the rates of IVF-related pregnancies and live births increased. The percentage of IVF cycles with the use of ICSI also increased dramatically (from 11.0% to 57.5%), while the percentage of diagnoses of infertility attributed to male-factor conditions remained stable. The ratio of ICSI procedures to diagnoses of male-factor infertility steadily increased each year, suggesting an increasing use of ICSI for conditions other than male-factor infertility. From 1999 to 2004, there was an increasing use of ICSI relative to the percentage of patients with male-factor infertility in states with and those without mandated insurance coverage. For any given year, however, states with insurance coverage had a higher ratio of ICSI use to diagnoses of male-factor infertility than did states without insurance coverage (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1995, the use of ICSI in the United States has increased dramatically, while the proportion of patients receiving treatment for male-factor infertility has remained stable. State-mandated health insurance coverage for IVF services is associated with greater use of ICSI for infertility that is not attributed to male-factor conditions.