scholarly journals Use of donor sperm in addition to oocyte donation after repeated implantation failure in normozoospermic patients does not improve live birth rates

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 2549-2553 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Blázquez ◽  
D. García ◽  
A. Rodríguez ◽  
R. Vassena ◽  
V. Vernaeve
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Oocyte Donation ◽  
Implantation Failure ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Donor Sperm ◽  
Repeated Implantation Failure ◽  
Live Birth Rates

scholarly journals Customized Frozen Embryo Transfer after Identification of the Receptivity Window with a Transcriptomic Approach Improves the Implantation and Live Birth Rates in Patients with Repeated Implantation Failure

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Delphine Haouzi ◽  
Frida Entezami ◽  
Antoine Torre ◽  
Charlène Innocenti ◽  
Yannick Antoine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Hormone Replacement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implantation Failure ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Repeated Implantation Failure ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Classical Procedure

AbstractThe aim of this prospective study was to evaluate outcome benefits expected in repeated implantation failure (RIF) patients (n = 217) after customized embryo transfer based upon identification of the receptivity window by transcriptomic approach using the Win-Test. In this test, the expression of 11 endometrial genes known to be predictive of endometrial receptivity is assessed by RT-PCR in biopsies collected during the implantation window (6–9 days after the spontaneous luteinizing hormone surge during natural cycles, 5–9 days after progesterone administration during hormone replacement therapy cycles). Then, patients underwent either customized embryo transfer (cET, n = 157 patients) according to the Win-Test results or embryo transfer according to the classical procedure (control group, n = 60). Pregnancy and live birth rates were compared in the two groups. The Win-Test showed that in 78.5% of women, the receptivity window lasted less than 48 h, although it could be shorter (< 24 h, 9.5%) or longer (> 48 h, 12%). This highlighted that only in 20% of patients with RIF the endometrium would have been receptive if the classical embryo transfer protocol was followed. In the other 80% of patients, the receptivity window was delayed by 1–3 days relative to the classical timing. This suggests that implantation failure could be linked to inadequate timing of embryo transfer. In agreement, both implantation (22.7% vs. 7.2%) and live birth rates per patient (31.8% vs. 8.3%) were significantly higher in the cET group than in the control group. cET on the basis of the Win-Test results could be proposed to improve pregnancy and live birth rates.ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04192396; December 5, 2019, retrospectively registered.

P–013 Sperm freezing does not affect live birth rates: results from 6,594 cycles in normozoospermic patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Torra ◽  
M Tutusaus ◽  
D Garcia ◽  
R Vassena ◽  
A Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Oocyte Donation ◽  
Blastocyst Stage ◽  
Reproductive Outcomes ◽  
Sperm Cryopreservation ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cryopreserved Sperm ◽  
Fresh Semen

Abstract Study question Does sperm cryopreservation influence the reproductive outcomes of normozoospermic patients undergoing elective ICSI? Summary answer After controlling for confounders, the use of cryopreserved semen from normozoospermic patients does not affect pregnancy and live birth rates after ICSI. What is known already Sperm cryopreservation with slow freezing is a common practice in ART. While frozen-thawed semen typically presents reduced motility and vitality, its use for ICSI is generally considered adequate in terms of reproductive outcomes. Nevertheless, most studies comparing reproductive outcomes between fresh versus cryopreserved sperm include patients with oligo- and/or asthenozoospermia, where the altered quality of the sample can partially mask the full effect of freezing/thawing. The objective of this study is to ascertain whether ICSI using fresh or cryopreserved semen from normozoospermic patients results in similar fertilization rates and reproductive outcomes. Study design, size, duration Retrospective cohort of 6,594 couples undergoing their first elective ICSI cycle between January 2011 and December 2019, using normozoospermic partner semen (fresh or cryopreserved). All cycles involved a fresh embryo transfer, either at cleavage or blastocyst stage. Cycles were divided in 4 groups: fresh semen with partner’s oocytes (FSPO, n = 1.878), cryopreserved semen with partner’s oocytes (CSPO, n = 142), fresh semen with donor oocytes (FSDO, n = 2.413), and cryopreserved semen with donor oocytes (CSDO, n = 2.161). Participants/materials, setting, methods A slow freezing protocol using GM501 SpermStore medium (Gynemed, Lensahn) was used for all sperm cryopreservation. Sperm washing, capacitation, and selection prior to ICSI were performed equally for fresh and frozen-thawed samples, using pellet swim-up in IVF® medium (Vitrolife, Göteborg). Fertilization rate (FR), pregnancy (biochemical, clinical, and ongoing) and live birth (LB) rates were compared among study groups using Pearson’s Chi square and Student’s t-test. A p-value &lt;0.05 was considered statistically significant. Main results and the role of chance Male and female age, sperm concentration and motility after ejaculation, and number of oocytes inseminated were similar between study groups compared (FSPO vs. CSPO, FSDO vs. CSDO). As expected, oocyte donation cycles resulted in higher LB rate than cycles in which partner’s oocytes were used (30.04% vs 18.17%, p &lt; 0.001). In cycles using partner’s oocytes, no significant differences were observed between fresh and cryopreserved sperm in FR, pregnancy and LB rates (p &gt; 0.05 for all outcomes). However, in oocyte donation, the mean FR after ICSI using cryopreserved semen (73.6 ± 19.6) was lower than the FR obtained with fresh semen (75.1 ± 19.2), p = 0.010. Similarly, in oocyte donation cycles, the biochemical pregnancy rate was significantly lower when using cryopreserved semen (48.5% in CSDO vs. 52.3% in FSDO, p = 0.009), while clinical, ongoing pregnancy and LB rates were similar between both semen status (p &gt; 0.05). In oocyte donation, a subgroup analysis including only the ICSI cycles with embryo transfer at blastocyst stage (n = 1.187 for FSDO, n = 337 for CSDO) confirmed that the LB rate was comparable between fresh and cryopreserved semen groups (34.7% vs 35.6% respectively, p = 0.76), without significant differences in pregnancy rates neither (p &gt; 0.05 for all outcomes). Limitations, reasons for caution Caution should be exerted when extrapolating these results to different protocols for sperm cryopreservation and selection, or to IVM and classical IVF cycles, which were excluded from analysis. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, some uncontrolled for variables may affect the results. Wider implications of the findings: Sperm cryopreservation does not affect pregnancy and live birth rates in normozoospermic patients, although it may lower slightly fertilization rates. In line with previous studies including patients with an apparent male factor detected after routine semen analysis, sperm cryopreservation is a safe and convenient technique. Trial registration number Not applicable

scholarly journals Intrauterine insemination with donor sperm: only the number of motile spermatozoa inseminated influences both pregnancy and live-birth rates

2022 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Marie Cardey-Lefort ◽  
Berengere Ducrocq ◽  
Audrey Uk ◽  
Helen Behal ◽  
Anne-Laure Barbotin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Intrauterine Insemination ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Donor Sperm ◽  
Live Birth Rates

Aspirin and heparin as adjuvants during IVF do not improve live birth rates in unexplained implantation failure

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 586-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad A. Akhtar ◽  
Hanan Eljabu ◽  
James Hopkisson ◽  
Nick Raine-Fenning ◽  
Siobhan Quenby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Implantation Failure ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document