Michael L Eisenberg1, Katherine J Sapra2, Sung Duk Kim3, Zhen Chen3, Germaine M Buck Louis4. 1. Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: eisenberg@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Division of Epidemiology, Statistics and Prevention Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland. 4. Office of the Director, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between semen quality and pregnancy loss in a cohort of couples attempting to conceive. DESIGN: Observational prospective cohort. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Three hundred and forty-four couples with a singleton pregnancy observed daily through 7 postconception weeks of gestation. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Association between semen quality and pregnancy loss. RESULT(S): Ninety-eight (28%) of the couples experienced a pregnancy loss after singleton pregnancy. No differences were observed in semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, sperm viability, or sperm morphology (World Health Organization [WHO] and strict criteria) by couple's pregnancy loss status irrespective of whether they were analyzed continuously or as dichotomous variables per the WHO 5th edition semen criteria. A dichotomous DNA fragmentation measure of ≥30% was statistically significantly associated with pregnancy loss. No association was identified with other sperm morphometric or movement measures. Of the 70 couples who re-enrolled after a pregnancy loss, 14 experienced a second loss. Similar findings were identified when examining semen quality from couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. CONCLUSION(S): Although a few trends were identified (e.g., DNA fragmentation), general semen parameters seemed to have little relation with risk of pregnancy loss or recurrent pregnancy loss at the population level. However, given that 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and half the fetal genome is paternal in origin, the findings await corroboration.
OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between semen quality and pregnancy loss in a cohort of couples attempting to conceive. DESIGN: Observational prospective cohort. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Three hundred and forty-four couples with a singleton pregnancy observed daily through 7 postconception weeks of gestation. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Association between semen quality and pregnancy loss. RESULT(S): Ninety-eight (28%) of the couples experienced a pregnancy loss after singleton pregnancy. No differences were observed in semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, sperm viability, or sperm morphology (World Health Organization [WHO] and strict criteria) by couple's pregnancy loss status irrespective of whether they were analyzed continuously or as dichotomous variables per the WHO 5th edition semen criteria. A dichotomous DNA fragmentation measure of ≥30% was statistically significantly associated with pregnancy loss. No association was identified with other sperm morphometric or movement measures. Of the 70 couples who re-enrolled after a pregnancy loss, 14 experienced a second loss. Similar findings were identified when examining semen quality from couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. CONCLUSION(S): Although a few trends were identified (e.g., DNA fragmentation), general semen parameters seemed to have little relation with risk of pregnancy loss or recurrent pregnancy loss at the population level. However, given that 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and half the fetal genome is paternal in origin, the findings await corroboration.
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; Katherine J Sapra; Enrique F Schisterman; Courtney D Lynch; José M Maisog; Katherine L Grantz; Rajeshwari Sundaram Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Trevor G Cooper; Elizabeth Noonan; Sigrid von Eckardstein; Jacques Auger; H W Gordon Baker; Hermann M Behre; Trine B Haugen; Thinus Kruger; Christina Wang; Michael T Mbizvo; Kirsten M Vogelsong Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: A J Wilcox; C R Weinberg; J F O'Connor; D D Baird; J P Schlatterer; R E Canfield; E G Armstrong; B C Nisula Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1988-07-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas J Luben; Andrew F Olshan; Amy H Herring; Susan Jeffay; Lillian Strader; Rebecca M Buus; Ronna L Chan; David A Savitz; Philip C Singer; Howard S Weinberg; Sally D Perreault Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Alyssa F Harlow; Amelia K Wesselink; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Lauren A Wise Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.860