Rui-Qi Li1,2, Neng-Yong Ouyang3,4, Song-Bang Ou5,6, Ren-Min Ni7,8, Mei-Qi Mai9,10, Qing-Xue Zhang11,12, Dong-Zi Yang13,14, Wen-Jun Wang15,16. 1. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. lirq07@sina.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. lirq07@sina.com. 3. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. 563667624@qq.com. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. 563667624@qq.com. 5. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. 195815612@qq.com. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. 195815612@qq.com. 7. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. lilyni66@126.com. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. lilyni66@126.com. 9. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. wxszzx@163.com. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. wxszzx@163.com. 11. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. zhangqingxue666@aliyun.com. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. zhangqingxue666@aliyun.com. 13. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. yangdz@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 14. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. yangdz@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 15. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. wenjungzcn@163.com. 16. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Centre, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 510120. wenjungzcn@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this retrospective study was to determine whether patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) benefit from reducing the gamete co-incubation time. METHODS: Patients (n = 570) were enrolled, including 281 patients in the reduced incubation time group (2-h incubation) and 289 patients in the standard IVF group (18-h incubation). RESULTS: The observed outcomes, including the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), live birth rate (LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR), were similar between the two groups. When the data were divided into two subgroups based on the maternal age (≤30 and >30 years), the rates of top-quality embryos (30.83 vs. 25.89 %; p = 0.028), CPR (66.67 vs. 42.11 %; p = 0.013), and IR (41.90 vs. 31.25 %, p = 0.019) of the 2-h incubation group were significantly higher in the younger subgroup. However, for older patients, only a lower MR (7.59 vs. 20.83 %; p = 0.019) was achieved. Reducing the time of incubation still improved the CPR (OR = 1.993, 95 % CI 1.141-3.480) and MR (OR = 3.173, 95 % CI 1.013-9.936) in the younger and older subgroups, respectively, after it was adjusted for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing incubation time improves the clinical results of IVF, although the LBR is not statistically different between the 2- and 18-h incubation time groups. And the specific clinical outcomes of reducing incubation time varied between the >30-year-old and the ≤30-year-old.
PURPOSE: The objective of this retrospective study was to determine whether patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) benefit from reducing the gamete co-incubation time. METHODS:Patients (n = 570) were enrolled, including 281 patients in the reduced incubation time group (2-h incubation) and 289 patients in the standard IVF group (18-h incubation). RESULTS: The observed outcomes, including the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), live birth rate (LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR), were similar between the two groups. When the data were divided into two subgroups based on the maternal age (≤30 and >30 years), the rates of top-quality embryos (30.83 vs. 25.89 %; p = 0.028), CPR (66.67 vs. 42.11 %; p = 0.013), and IR (41.90 vs. 31.25 %, p = 0.019) of the 2-h incubation group were significantly higher in the younger subgroup. However, for older patients, only a lower MR (7.59 vs. 20.83 %; p = 0.019) was achieved. Reducing the time of incubation still improved the CPR (OR = 1.993, 95 % CI 1.141-3.480) and MR (OR = 3.173, 95 % CI 1.013-9.936) in the younger and older subgroups, respectively, after it was adjusted for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing incubation time improves the clinical results of IVF, although the LBR is not statistically different between the 2- and 18-h incubation time groups. And the specific clinical outcomes of reducing incubation time varied between the >30-year-old and the ≤30-year-old.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fertility; Gamete co-incubation; Live birth rate; Miscarriage rate
Authors: M Dirnfeld; H Shiloh; D Bider; E Harari; M Koifman; S Lahav-Baratz; H Abramovici Journal: Gynecol Endocrinol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.260