Literature DB >> 31612995

Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination.

Carolien M Boomsma1, Ben J Cohlen, Cindy Farquhar.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Semen preparation techniques for assisted reproduction, including intrauterine insemination (IUI), were developed to select the motile morphologically normal spermatozoa. The yield of many motile, morphologically normal spermatozoa might influence treatment choices and therefore outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of three different semen preparation techniques (gradient; swim-up; wash and centrifugation) on clinical outcomes (live birth rate; clinical pregnancy rate) in subfertile couples undergoing IUI. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct Database, National Research Register, Biological Abstracts and clinical trial registries in March 2019, and checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy in terms of clinical outcomes of semen preparation techniques used for subfertile couples undergoing IUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes are live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate per couple. MAIN
RESULTS: We included seven RCTS in the review; we included six of these, totalling 485 couples, in the meta-analysis. No trials reported the primary outcome of live birth. The evidence was of very low-quality. The main limitations were (unclear) risk of bias, signs of imprecision and inconsistency in results among studies and the small number of studies/participants included.Swim-up versus gradient technique Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) for swim-up versus a gradient technique (odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; I² = 71%; 4 RCTs, 370 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a gradient technique is assumed to be 24%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 14% and 30%. We are uncertain whether there was a real difference between ongoing pregnancy rates per couple (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 223 participants; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates (MPR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (MPR per couple 0% versus 0%; 1 RCT, 25 participants; very low-quality of evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates (MR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.59; I² = 44%; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Swim-up versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a swim-up technique versus wash and centrifugation (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.13; I² = 55%; 2 RCTs, 78 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 38%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 9% and 41%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates between swim-up technique versus wash technique (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.02 to 13.28; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 26 participants; very low-quality evidence). Miscarriage rate was only reported by one study: no miscarriages were reported in either treatment arm. No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Gradient versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 5.46; I² = 52%; 2 RCTs, 94 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 13%, the chance of pregnancy after using the gradient technique is between 8% and 46%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.83; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 6.11, 95% CI 0.27 to 138.45; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific semen preparation technique: swim-up versus gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique. No studies reported on live birth rates. Considering the quality of evidence (very low), we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates or miscarriage rates per couple) between the three sperm preparation techniques. Further randomised trials are warranted that report live birth data.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31612995      PMCID: PMC6792139          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004507.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  73 in total

Review 1.  Preimplantation genetics: an explanation for poor human fertility?

Authors:  J D Delhanty
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 1.670

2.  Use of high-magnification microscopy for the assessment of sperm recovered after two different sperm processing methods.

Authors:  Ana Laura Monqaut; Christabell Zavaleta; Gemma López; Rafael Lafuente; Mario Brassesco
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Techniques of sperm selection and in vitro fertilization results.

Authors:  T Leonetti; F Causio; G Cagnazzo
Journal:  Acta Eur Fertil       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb

4.  Magnetic-activated cell sorting before density gradient centrifugation improves recovery of high-quality spermatozoa.

Authors:  T S Berteli; M G Da Broi; W P Martins; R A Ferriani; P A Navarro
Journal:  Andrology       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.842

5.  Effect of the total motile sperm count on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  B J Van Voorhis; M Barnett; A E Sparks; C H Syrop; G Rosenthal; J Dawson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Effect of sperm treatment with exogenous platelet-activating factor on the outcome of intrauterine insemination.

Authors:  Odysseas Grigoriou; Evangelos Makrakis; Socrates Konidaris; Dimitrios Hassiakos; Konstantinos Papadias; Stavroula Baka; George Creatsas
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Artificial insemination: a comparison of pregnancy rates with intrauterine versus cervical insemination and washed sperm versus serum swim-up sperm preparations.

Authors:  R L Urry; R G Middleton; K Jones; M Poulson; R Worley; W Keye
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  A randomized controlled study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness in sperm extraction using carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide free system in relation to intrauterine insemination pregnancy.

Authors:  Rajesh Bhakta; Pratap Kumar; Satish Kumar Adiga; Gurprasad Kalthur
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2010-01

9.  Inter and intra-individual variability of sperm morphology after selection with three different techniques: layering, swimup from pellet and percoll.

Authors:  D Canale; P M Giorgi; M Gasperini; E Pucci; D Barletta; M Gasperi; E Martino
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 4.256

10.  Role of sperm DNA fragmentation in male factor infertility: A systematic review.

Authors:  Chak-Lam Cho; Ashok Agarwal
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2017-12-06
View more
  5 in total

1.  Management of male factor infertility: position statement from the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine (SIAMS) : Endorsing Organization: Italian Society of Embryology, Reproduction, and Research (SIERR).

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

Review 2.  Predictive factors for intrauterine insemination outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Anabel Starosta; Catherine E Gordon; Mark D Hornstein
Journal:  Fertil Res Pract       Date:  2020-12-11

3.  Cumulative live birth rates after IVF/ICSI cycles with sperm prepared by density gradient centrifugation vs. swim-up: a retrospective study using a propensity score-matching analysis.

Authors:  Meng Rao; Li Tang; Longda Wang; Mengxiang Chen; Gaofeng Yan; Shuhua Zhao
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 5.211

4.  Double versus single intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.

Authors:  Lidija Rakic; Elena Kostova; Ben J Cohlen; Astrid Ep Cantineau
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-07-14

5.  Multi-dimensional-double-spiral (MDDS) inertial microfluidic platform for sperm isolation directly from the raw semen sample.

Authors:  Hyungkook Jeon; Claudia Cremers; Doris Le; Justin Abell; Jongyoon Han
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 4.996

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.