Jianyuan Song1, Tingting Liao2, Kaiyou Fu3, Jian Xu1. 1. The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China. 2. Reproductive Medicine Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 3. Women's Hospital School of Medicine Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
Objectives: Unexplained infertility has been one of the indications for utilization of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, whether ICSI should be preferred to IVF for patients with unexplained infertility remains an open question. This study aims to determine if ICSI improves the clinical outcomes over conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) in couples with unexplained infertility. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 549 IVF and 241 ICSI cycles for patients with unexplained infertility at a fertility center of a university hospital from January 2016 and December 2018. The live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate were compared between the two groups. Other outcome measures included the implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and fertilization rate. Results: The live birth rate was 35.2% (172/488) in the IVF group and 33.3% (65/195) in ICSI group, P = 0.635. The two groups also had similar clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and miscarriage rates. The fertilization rate of IVF group was significantly higher than that of ICSI group (53.8 vs. 45.7%, P = 0.000, respectively). Sixty-one and 46 patients did not transfer fresh embryos in IVF and ICSI cycles, respectively. Patients with IVF cycles had lower cancellation rates than those with ICSI (11.1 vs. 19.1%, P = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: ICSI does not improve live birth rates but yields higher cancellation rates than conventional IVF in the treatment of unexplained infertility.
Objectives: Unexplained infertility has been one of the indications for utilization of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, whether ICSI should be preferred to IVF for patients with unexplained infertility remains an open question. This study aims to determine if ICSI improves the clinical outcomes over conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) in couples with unexplained infertility. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 549 IVF and 241 ICSI cycles for patients with unexplained infertility at a fertility center of a university hospital from January 2016 and December 2018. The live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate were compared between the two groups. Other outcome measures included the implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and fertilization rate. Results: The live birth rate was 35.2% (172/488) in the IVF group and 33.3% (65/195) in ICSI group, P = 0.635. The two groups also had similar clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and miscarriage rates. The fertilization rate of IVF group was significantly higher than that of ICSI group (53.8 vs. 45.7%, P = 0.000, respectively). Sixty-one and 46 patients did not transfer fresh embryos in IVF and ICSI cycles, respectively. Patients with IVF cycles had lower cancellation rates than those with ICSI (11.1 vs. 19.1%, P = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: ICSI does not improve live birth rates but yields higher cancellation rates than conventional IVF in the treatment of unexplained infertility.
Authors: S Fishel; I Aslam; F Lisi; L Rinaldi; J Timson; M Jacobson; L Gobetz; S Green; A Campbell; R Lisi Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Shu C Foong; Judy A Fleetham; Joseph A O'Keane; Selma G Scott; Suzanne C Tough; Calvin A Greene Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: D J McLernon; A J Lee; A Maheshwari; R van Eekelen; N van Geloven; H Putter; M J Eijkemans; J W van der Steeg; F van der Veen; E W Steyerberg; B W Mol; S Bhattacharya Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: A W Chan; C M Luetjens; T Dominko; J Ramalho-Santos; C R Simerly; L Hewitson; G Schatten Journal: Mol Hum Reprod Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Sheree L Boulet; Akanksha Mehta; Dmitry M Kissin; Lee Warner; Jennifer F Kawwass; Denise J Jamieson Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 56.272