Advertisement

Semen parameters on the day of oocyte retrieval predict low fertilization during conventional insemination IVF cycles

  • A. L. Harris
  • J. C. Vanegas
  • E. Hariton
  • P. Bortoletto
  • M. Palmor
  • L. A. Humphries
  • C. Tanrikut
  • J. E. Chavarro
  • A. K. Styer
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Purpose

Poor fertilization during conventional IVF is difficult to predict in the absence of abnormal semen parameters; large-scale studies are lacking. The purpose of this study is to evaluate factors associated with low fertilization rates in conventional insemination IVF cycles.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study evaluating demographic, reproductive evaluation, and IVF cycle characteristics to identify predictors of low fertilization (defined as 2PN/MII ≤ 30% per cycle). Participants were included if they were undergoing their first IVF cycle utilizing fresh autologous oocytes and conventional insemination with male partner’s sperm (with normal pretreatment semen analysis). They were randomly divided into a training set and a validation set; validation modeling with logistic regression and binary distribution was utilized to identify covariates associated with low fertilization.

Results

Postprocessing sperm concentration of less than 40 million/ml and postprocessing sperm motility < 50% on the day of retrieval were the strongest predictors of low fertilization in the training dataset. Next, in the validation set, cycles with either low postprocessing concentration (≤ 40 million/ml) or low postprocessing progressive motility (≤ 50%) were 2.9–times (95% CI 1.4, 6.2) more likely to have low fertilization than cycles without either risk factor. Furthermore, cycles with low postprocessing concentration and progressive motility were 13.4 times (95% CI 4.01, 45.06) more likely to have low fertilization than cycles without either risk factor.

Conclusions

Postprocessing concentration and progressive motility on the day of oocyte retrieval are predictive of low fertilization in conventional IVF cycles with normal pretreatment diagnostic semen analysis parameters.

Keywords

In vitro fertilization Conventional insemination Assisted reproductive technologies Semen analysis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10815_2018_1336_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 12 kb)
10815_2018_1336_MOESM2_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 12 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Barlow P, Englert Y, Puissant F, Lejeune B, Delvigne A, Van Rysselberge M, et al. Fertilization failure in IVF: why and what next? Hum Reprod. 1990;5(4):451–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matson P, Troup S, Lowe B, Ibrahim Z, Burslem R, Lieberman B. Fertilization of human oocytes in vitro by spermatozoa from oligozoospermic and normospermic men. Int J Androl. 1989;12(2):117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mahutte NG, Arici A. Failed fertilization: is it predictable? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;15(3):211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Westerlaken L, Helmerhorst F, Dieben S, Naaktgeboren N. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a treatment for unexplained total fertilization failure or low fertilization after conventional in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):612–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharya S, Hamilton M, Shaaban M, Khalaf Y, Seddler M, Ghobara T, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilisation versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male-factor infertility: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;357(9274):2075–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jiaen L, Zsolt N, Hubert J, Herman T, Johan S, Michel C, et al. Analysis of 76 total fertilization failure cycles out of 2732 intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(10):2630–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahutte NG, Arici A. Failed fertilization: is it predictable? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;15(3):211–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gco.0000072858.73466.aa.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wall M, Marks K, Smith T, Gearon C, Muggleton-Harris A. Cytogenetic and fluorescent in-situ hybridization chromosomal studies on in-vitro fertilized and intracytoplasmic sperm injected'failed-fertilized'human oocytes. Human reprod. 1996;11((10)):2230–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edirisinghe WR, Murch A, Junk S, Yovich JL. Cytogenetic abnormalities of unfertilized oocytes generated from in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a double-blind study. Human reprod. 1997;12(12):2784–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Segal TR, Mínguez-Alarcón L, Chiu Y-H, Williams PL, Nassan FL, Dadd R, et al. Urinary concentrations of 3-(diethylcarbamoyl) benzoic acid (DCBA), a major metabolite of N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) and semen parameters among men attending a fertility center. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(12):2532–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human sperm. World Health Organizion,. 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger S. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(1):112–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mok-Lin E, Ehrlich S, Williams P, Petrozza J, Wright D, Calafat A, et al. Urinary bisphenol A concentrations and ovarian response among women undergoing IVF. Int J Androl. 2010;33(2):385–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dewailly D, Lujan ME, Carmina E, Cedars MI, Laven J, Norman RJ, et al. Definition and significance of polycystic ovarian morphology: a task force report from the Androgen Excess and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Society. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):334–52.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin YM, Kamal A. Prospective controlled randomized study of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the treatment of tubal factor infertility with normal semen parameters. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(5):753–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Repping S, van Weert J-M, Mol BW, de Vries JW, van der Veen F. Use of the total motile sperm count to predict total fertilization failure in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(1):22–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahyaoglu I, Demir B, Turkkanı A, Cınar O, Dilbaz S, Dilbaz B, et al. Total fertilization failure: is it the end of the story? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(9):1155–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0281-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, Warner L, Kawwass JF, Jamieson DJ. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA. 2015;313(3):255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    of the American TPC. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1395–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eftekhar M, Mohammadian F, Yousefnejad F, Molaei B, Aflatoonian A. Comparison of conventional IVF versus ICSI in non-male factor, normoresponder patients. Iranian J Reprod. Med. 2012;10(2):131–6.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davies M, Rumbold A, Marino J, Willson K, Giles L, Whitrow M et al. Maternal factors and the risk of birth defects after IVF and ICSI: a whole of population cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kissin D, Zhang Y, Boulet S, Fountain C, Bearman P, Schieve L, et al. Association of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment and parental infertility diagnosis with autism in ART-conceived children. Hum Reprod. 2014;30(2):454–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wen J, Jiang J, Ding C, Dai J, Liu Y, Xia Y et al. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertility and sterility. 2012;97(6):1331–7. e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(19):1803–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roest J, van Heusden AM, Zeilmaker GH, Verhoeff A. Treatment policy after poor fertilization in the first IVF cycle. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15(1):18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Medicine ASoR. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1395–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Benadiva CA, Nulsen J, Siano L, Jennings J, Givargis HB, Maier D. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection overcomes previous fertilization failure with conventional in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(6):1041–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kinzer DR, Barrett CB, Powers RD. Prognosis for clinical pregnancy and delivery after total fertilization failure during conventional in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(2):284–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tomás C, Orava M, Tuomivaara L, Martikainen H. Low pregnancy rate is achieved in patients treated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection due to previous low or failed fertilization in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(1):65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Vincent Memorial Obstetrics and Gynecology ServiceBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive BiologyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of NutritionHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of EpidemiologyHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  5. 5.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  6. 6.Department of UrologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  8. 8.Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations