OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a non-expensive, easy and fast technique (direct micro swim-up) for sperm preparation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments without the use of centrifuge. METHODS: We carried out a multicentric study in which a total of 140 ICSI-cycles were included. Sibling oocytes were divided into two groups according to semen preparation procedures: group A, discontinuous gradients (DG) (oocytes n=668), and group B, direct micro swim-up (MSU) (oocytes n=660). We analyzed differences in some key performance indicators. RESULTS: Fertilization rates were not statistically different between the DG and MSU groups (76.0% vs. 81.8%, respectively, p=0.248); while significant differences were found in blastulation rates per fertilized oocytes (41.7% vs. 58.5%, p=0.009), blastulation rates per D3 embryos (46.1% vs. 63.7%, p=0.045), and pregnancy rates (25.8% vs. 41.9%, p=0.045). The abortion rate was reduced in the MSU group as compared to DG, but not in a significant manner (12.9% vs. 29.4%, p=0.161). CONCLUSION: The MSU procedure has the advantage of reducing costs, time and mismatches, while ensuring comparable, and in some cases, better results than DG treatments. This technique can therefore be used as an alternative method to other conventional semen treatments.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a non-expensive, easy and fast technique (direct micro swim-up) for sperm preparation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments without the use of centrifuge. METHODS: We carried out a multicentric study in which a total of 140 ICSI-cycles were included. Sibling oocytes were divided into two groups according to semen preparation procedures: group A, discontinuous gradients (DG) (oocytes n=668), and group B, direct micro swim-up (MSU) (oocytes n=660). We analyzed differences in some key performance indicators. RESULTS: Fertilization rates were not statistically different between the DG and MSU groups (76.0% vs. 81.8%, respectively, p=0.248); while significant differences were found in blastulation rates per fertilized oocytes (41.7% vs. 58.5%, p=0.009), blastulation rates per D3 embryos (46.1% vs. 63.7%, p=0.045), and pregnancy rates (25.8% vs. 41.9%, p=0.045). The abortion rate was reduced in the MSU group as compared to DG, but not in a significant manner (12.9% vs. 29.4%, p=0.161). CONCLUSION: The MSU procedure has the advantage of reducing costs, time and mismatches, while ensuring comparable, and in some cases, better results than DG treatments. This technique can therefore be used as an alternative method to other conventional semen treatments.
Many methods have been developed for semen sample preparation for in
vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments according to semen quality
parameters (concentration, motility, morphology). The procedures include, as major
techniques, simple washing, direct swim-up, and discontinuous density gradients
(World of Health Organization, 2010).To perform these procedures, a laboratory must be equipped with specific materials
and media that increase the costs of the entire IVF treatment. Moreover, all the
procedures require centrifugations varying in speed and time, and the movement of
the samples from one tube to another thus increasing the risk of mismatches.A wide variability in the techniques used for semen treatments leads to the need to
evaluate the potential benefits and risks of each procedure, in terms of (i) sperm
function, embryo development and treatment outcome; (ii) technical complexity and
risk of sample mismatches; (iii) material costs and time of the procedure.Regarding sperm function maintenance following the two most conventional methods of
sperm preparation, namely swim-up (SU) and discontinuous gradients (DG), there are
different opinions in the literature. Some authors reported a higher recovery rate
of total motile, progressive motile and viable sperm cells after DG than after SU
([Ding ]; [Ricci ]). Other benefits of DG are the higher
percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa ([Prakash ]; [Hammadeh ]) and the lower deformity rate and DNA fragmentation index
([Xue ]). In contrast, other authors reported that the proportion
of fast spermatozoa was enhanced in SU preparations ([Chantler ]) and that
spermatozoa reported less vacuolizations ([Monqaut ]).Another topic of debate concerns the use of the centrifuge and the formation of
reactive oxygen species (ROS) during semen treatment. DG centrifugation may be
detrimental to sperm DNA integrity, especially in semen samples from infertilemen
with impaired motility and morphology ([Zini
]). These samples generate high
pathological ROS levels (because of morphologically abnormal sperm) and have a lower
total antioxidant capacity (TAC) than seminal plasma from fertile men ([Benedetti ]). Consequently, serial centrifugations can result in augmented
ROS generation and further loss of sperm function, probably due to the enhanced DNA
denaturation during centrifugation.To assess the best procedure for semen treatment, one must also consider the time of
centrifugation. Some authors ([Shekarriz
]) reported that the time of
centrifugation is more important than g-force for inducing ROS formation in semen,
recommending a shorter centrifugation time in the preparation of sperm for assisted
reproductive techniques.Concerning pregnancy rates in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, some
authors reported values of 46.2% and 57.1% for SU and DG, respectively ([Borges ]),
while other papers reported rates of 21.1% and 33.3% ([Van der Zwalmen ]) or
33.3% and 32.8% ([Hammadeh ]), respectively. These results do not
show a conclusion regarding fertilization and pregnancy rates in SU and DG
procedures.In this study, we used a simple, fast and non-expensive technique for semen
preparation in ICSI cycles, namely direct micro swim-up (MSU), as recently reported
([Palini ]). MSU is a safe treatment regarding the presence of
microbiological contaminants; indeed, we demonstrated that sample fractions obtained
after the MSU procedure and used for ICSI insemination were free of contaminants
even in semen samples positive for sexual pathogens ([Palini ]). Despite this
evidence, inclusion criteria for the present study were negative urethral and
vaginal swabs, confirmed before treatment, and negative infection tests (HIV, HCV,
HbsAg, HbcAb, VDRL-TPHA).The aim of the present study was to compare MSU with DG procedures in terms of
fertilization rates (FR), blastulation rates (BR), pregnancy rates (PR), and
abortion rates (AR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This is a multicentric study involving four Assisted Reproduction Clinics in Europe.
The study was approved by an Internal Review Board (IRB) of each participating
center. All the four clinics used the same media, procedures and incubators.We retrospectively evaluated 140 ICSI cycles performed from October 2014 to June 2015
involving 140 couples (women aged 35±4 years, men aged 38±3 years)
undergoing IVF treatments due to male (n=52), female (n=20), multifactorial (n=8),
or idiopathic (n=60) infertility. The inclusion criteria were as follows: negative
urethral and vaginal swabs confirmed before treatment, negative infection tests
(HIV, HCV, HbsAg, HbcAb, VDRL-TPHA) for couples, at least 8 mature oocytes retrieved
at pickup, oocyte insemination with ICSI technique, only fresh elective single
embryo transfer (eSET) at blastocyst stage, and sperm concentration
≥1x106/ml.In each cycle, we divided sibling oocyte populations into two groups according to the
technique used for sperm preparation for the ICSI: group A, discontinuous gradients
(DG), and group B, direct micro swim-up (MSU) (Figure
1).
Figure 1
Study design.
Study design.The study was carried out in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical
Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans following the
Internal Review Board's approval (granted September 2014).
Semen sample collection
All semen samples were collected by masturbation (three to five days of
ejaculatory abstinence) about one hour before insemination, to reduce the
exposure time of spermatozoa to seminal plasma. After fluidification for 10-20
minutes at 37°C, semen samples were evaluated according to [WHO criteria (2010)]. Semen with
high viscosity were pretreated with the addiction of an equal volume of medium
(G GameteTM Vitrolife).
DG procedure
DG procedure was performed using three different gradient concentrations (95%,
70%, 50%) prepared with a density gradient solution (Spermient K-SISP COOK) and
a buffer medium (G MOPSTM Vitrolife). The 95% layer (0.5ml) was
transferred into a 15-ml conical centrifuge tube (BD FalconTM) and
then the other layers (0.5ml) were gently released above the previous gradient.
A volume of semen sample (0.5ml) was then placed on the top of the upper layer
and the tube was centrifuged for 10 minutes at 1200rpm.For each DG procedure, we used two 15ml conical tubes. After centrifugation, the
lower layer was recovered in a sterile new tube and the pellet was resuspended
with 5ml of G GameteTM Vitrolife for a subsequent centrifugation at
1200rpm for 5 minutes.The supernatant was then removed and the pellet was submitted to swim-up by
gently overlaying 1ml of G GameteTM Vitrolife. The tube was inclined
at an angle of 45 degrees and left in the incubator for at least 40 minutes
under controlled atmosphere conditions (6% CO2, 20% O2).
After incubation, the supernatant was aspirated and transferred into a sterile
new 15ml conical tube placed in the incubator until the time of injection. Sperm
analysis was done using a sample fraction according to [WHO criteria (2010)].
MSU procedure
After semen evaluation, about 1ml was recovered in a sterile 15ml conical tube
and was submitted to a direct swim-up by gently overlying 1ml of G
GameteTM Vitrolife. The tube was inclined at an angle of 45
degrees and left in the incubator until the time of injection under controlled
atmospheric conditions (6% CO2, 20% O2). In this
procedure, the use of the centrifuge was not expected. Sperm analysis was done
using a fraction of the direct swim-up semen according to [WHO criteria (2010)]. MSU
procedure was performed at ICSI time according to the methods recently published
([Palini ]).
Oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer
Ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval was performed 36 hours after human chorionic
gonadotropin (HCG) injection. Cumulus cells were removed 3 hours after pickup
and the insemination procedure was performed 40 hours after HCG administration.
Sibling oocytes were divided into two equal groups and inseminated by the same
operator using spermatozoa obtained by DG and MSU. Approximately 1620 hours
after insemination, fertilization was confirmed by the presence of two pronuclei
and the extrusion of the second polar body (Istanbul Consensus 2011).The embryos were cultured in a humidified atmosphere with 6% CO2, 5%
O2, and remaining nitrogen; and on Day 3 (D3) they were
classified according to the grading proposed by the [ALPHA and ESHRE societies (Istanbul Consensus)
(2011)].Elective fresh single embryo transfer (eSET) was performed on Day 5 (D5) after
insemination; blastocyst cryopreservation was performed on Day 6 (D6) after
insemination by Vitrification technique. D5 and D6 embryos were classified by
all the Clinics according to a revisited Gardner grading ([Veeck & Zaninovic, 2003]).Pregnancy was confirmed by serum beta HCG test 14 days after transfer.
Statistical analysis
Differences between DG and MSU groups' numbers of mature and fertilized oocytes,
numbers of D3 and D5/D6 embryos, and numbers of transferred and cryopreserved
embryos were assessed by the t-test for paired data. Differences in
fertilization and blastulation rates were assessed by the t-test for paired data
after arcsine transformation of the data. Differences regarding pregnancy and
abortion rates were evaluated by the Chi-square test. Probability values
≤0.05 were accepted.
RESULTS
To test the effectiveness of MSU as compared to DG, the following indicators were
considered: fertilization rate (FR), blastulation rate (BR), pregnancy rate (PR),
and abortion rate (AR). Results are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Differences in fertilization rate (FR), blastulation rate (BR), pregnancy
rate (PR), and abortion rate (AR) between DG and MSU groups.
DG
MSU
P value
Mature oocytes
668
660
0.660
Fertilized oocytes
508
540
0.174
D3 embryos
460
496
0.132
D5/D6 embryos
212
316
<0.001
Transferred D5/D6 embryos
66
74
0.666
Cryopreserved D5/D6 embryos
82
168
<0.001
FR (%)
76.0 (508/668)
81.8 (540/660)
0.248
BR per fertilized oocyte (%)
41.7 (212/508)
58.5 (316/540)
0.009
BR per D3 embryo (%)
46.1 (212/460)
63.7 (316/496)
0.045
PR (%)
25.8 (17/66)
41.9 (31/74)
0.045
AR (%)
29.4 (5/17)
12.9 (4/31)
0.161
Differences in fertilization rate (FR), blastulation rate (BR), pregnancy
rate (PR), and abortion rate (AR) between DG and MSU groups.Differences in fertilization rates were not significant between the DG and MSU groups
(76.0% vs. 81.8%, respectively, p=0.248); while significant
differences were found for blastulation rates per fertilized oocyte (41.7% vs.
58.5%, p=0.009), blastulation rates per D3 embryos (46.1% vs.
63.7%, p=0.045), and pregnancy rates (25.8% vs. 41.9%,
p=0.045). The abortion rate was reduced in the MSU group as
compared to the DG, but not in a significant manner (12.9% vs. 29.4%,
p=0.161), probably due to the small size of the population.
Differences in the numbers of frozen D5/D6 embryos were significant between DG and
MSU (82 vs. 168, p<0.001).
DISCUSSION
A wide variety of sperm preparation protocols are currently available in IVF
treatments. The most used techniques are density gradient (DG) centrifugation and
swim-up (SU) in cases of normospermia or moderate oligoasthenoteratozoospermia. In
patients with severe oligoasthenoteratozoospermia, strategies involving high speed
centrifugation are used to recover spermatozoa from all semen samples.The presence of a wide variability in the techniques used for semen treatments leads
to a need to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of each procedure. The
literature does not show a conclusion regarding fertilization and pregnancy rates in
SU and DG procedures but it demonstrates benefits in favor of SU in terms of DNA
damage and ROS production ([Zini ]).The MSU technique used in the present study is similar to that of SU, but it offers
the advantage of using no centrifugation, and still enabling an efficient selection
of spermatozoa by both the SU into the conical tube and the MSU in
polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), providing a gentler and safer treatment. The present
study not only demonstrates the greater reproducibility of the results with MSU when
compared with the DG, but what stands out is the possibility to use a non-invasive
method on semen treatment with statistically better results for embryo development
and pregnancy, that can potentially further increase, considering the cumulative
pregnancy with subsequent embryo warming. Differences in the number of frozen D5/D6
embryos were significant between DG and MSU, probably due to the better quality of
embryos obtained from the MSU group.One explanation for this could be found in the better health status of the embryos
obtained from spermatozoa that have suffered less stress during the treatment; in
fact, paternal contribution to embryo genome could be evident, especially in
blastocyst development ([Simon ]). Evidence of this is given by our
preliminary results (data not shown) that demonstrate, through an array of
Comparative Genetic Hybridization (aCGH) analysis, that blastocysts belonging to the
MSU group have a better euploid status than those from the DG group. More data is
needed to confirm this hypothesis.Furthermore, we must take into consideration the potential epigenetic modifications
that serial centrifugations and ROS production can have on spermatozoa, which are at
potentially greater risk because of their extended processing specially during the
DG technique. One study demonstrated a relationship between differential levels of
sperm DNA methylation and pregnancy rate in IVF treatments ([Benchaib ]); a later study reported correlations between sperm DNA
methylation and semen quality ([Houshdaran
]). Because of this,
spermatozoa may be carriers of epigenetic modifications that may open another
"epigenetic programming window" in the embryo, introducing changes in DNA imprint
([Miller ]).It may be noted that the proposed MSU technique, while being safer, does not allow
sperm capacitation ([Palini ]). However, our data shows that sperm
activation through immobilization before ICSI can be enough to enable the
fertilization process. Indeed, sperm plasma membrane damage has been described as a
necessary process prior to ICSI, as it plays a key role in oocyte activation caused
by spermatozoa ([Dozortsev ]; [Palermo ]).The SU procedure and the subsequent MSU also allowed to avoid the risk of mismatches,
because they reduced the number of conical tubes used for the treatment of seminal
samples. By comparing the two procedures used in the present study, a total of 3
tubes were used in DG, while only one after semen fluidification in MSU. Despite
this, the presence of two operators was always required for a double check during
the transition from the collecting container to the conical tube and from the
conical tube to the ICSI dish ([Magli ]).Another point in favor of SU and MSU treatments is the reduction of time and costs.
In fact, sperm collection and SU can be performed in proximity of the ICSI
insemination time, avoiding the risk of reduced DNA longevity. Unnecessary
incubation of spermatozoa prior to artificial insemination or in
vitro fertilization should be avoided, since sperm DNA longevity is
significantly reduced after ex vivo sperm handling, and sperm DNA
longevity after DG is lower when compared to sperm recovered from noncentrifuged
semen ([Gosálvez ]). When using MSU, 30 minutes are sufficient for SU and 3
minutes for micro swim-up in PVP.By using MSU, it is also possible to reduce costs since less consumables (such as
pipettes and tubes), culture medium and gradient solution are required. Furthermore,
although the insemination technique (ICSI) remains expensive for the need of a
micromanipulator, it would be possible to insert the MSU procedure into an IVF low
cost program, thus reducing the total cost of the treatment ([Van Blerkom ]; [Teoh ]).In conclusion, procedures that minimize excessive manipulation of sperm and
centrifugation should be used in IVF treatment as a valid alternative to improve the
outcome. This non-invasive technique enables to obtain embryos with a physiological
and probably better euploid status, although further data is needed to prove it. By
using the MSU procedure, it is also possible to reduce costs and mismatch errors
because less steps are required for semen treatment, facilitating the workflow in an
IVF laboratory.
Authors: A Ferlin; A E Calogero; C Krausz; F Lombardo; D Paoli; R Rago; C Scarica; M Simoni; C Foresta; V Rochira; E Sbardella; S Francavilla; G Corona Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: M Muratori; N Tarozzi; F Carpentiero; S Danti; F M Perrone; M Cambi; A Casini; C Azzari; L Boni; M Maggi; A Borini; E Baldi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 4.379