BackgroundSeveral studies suggest a decrease in sperm quality in men in the last decades. Therefore, the aim of this work was to assess the influence of male factors (sperm quality and paternal age) on the outcomes of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).MethodsThis retrospective study included all couples who underwent IVF or ICSI at Montpellier University Hospital, France, between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. Exclusion criteria were cycles using surgically retrieved sperm or frozen sperm, with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or using frozen oocytes. The primary outcomes were the blastulation rate (number of blastocysts obtained at day 5 or day 6/number of embryos in prolonged culture at day 3) and the clinical pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were the fertilization and early miscarriage rates.ResultsIn total, 859 IVF and 1632 ICSI cycles were included in this study. The fertilization rate after ICSI was affected by oligospermia. Moreover, in ICSI, severe oligospermia (lower than 0.2 million/ml) led to a reduction of the blastulation rate. Reduced rapid progressive motility affected particularly IVF, with a decrease of the fertilization rate and number of embryos at day 2 when progressive motility was lower than 32%.Paternal age also had a negative effect. Although it was difficult to eliminate the bias linked to the woman’s age, pregnancy rate was reduced in IVF and ICSI when the father was older than 51 and the mother older than 37 years.ConclusionsThese results allow adjusting our strategies of fertilization technique and embryo transfer. In the case of severe oligospermia, transfer should be carried out at the cleaved embryo stage (day 2–3) due to the very low blastulation rate. When the man is older than 51 years, couples should be aware of the reduced success rate, especially if the woman is older than 37 years. Finally, promising research avenues should be explored, such as the quantification of free sperm DNA, to optimize the selection of male gametes.
The 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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.