Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 5/2015

01-05-2015 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

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

Authors: Ioannis A. Sfontouris, Efstratios M. Kolibianakis, George T. Lainas, Ram Navaratnarajah, Basil C. Tarlatzis, Trifon G. Lainas

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
31.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
47.
Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. A review of ten years experience of ICSI. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(1):19–28.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved
Authors
Ioannis A. Sfontouris
Efstratios M. Kolibianakis
George T. Lainas
Ram Navaratnarajah
Basil C. Tarlatzis
Trifon G. Lainas
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0459-5

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 5/2015 Go to the issue

Epigenetics

Dysregulation of methylation and expression of imprinted genes in oocytes and reproductive tissues in mice of advanced maternal age

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Systemic oxidative stress could predict assisted reproductive technique outcome

Epigenetics

Female offspring sired by diet induced obese male mice display impaired blastocyst development with molecular alterations to their ovaries, oocytes and cumulus cells

Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Scrotal heat stress causes sperm chromatin damage and cysteinyl aspartate-spicific proteinases 3 changes in fertile men

Editor’s Commentary

When three is a crowd: on keeping outsiders out!

Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) in human semen: determination of a reference range