Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 297, Issue 5, pp 1301–1306 | Cite as

Conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): which is preferred for advanced age patients with five or fewer oocytes retrieved?

  • Hui Liu
  • Haibin Zhao
  • Guanling Yu
  • Mei Li
  • Shuiying Ma
  • Haozhen Zhang
  • Keliang Wu
Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the clinical outcomes of conventional IVF and ICSI in female patients aged 40 years and over with no more than five oocytes retrieved and non-male factor infertility.

Methods

A retrospective study of a cohort of 644 patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The 534 female patients aged ≧ 40 years with no more than five oocytes retrieved and non-male factor infertility undergoing their first conventional IVF cycles were assigned in IVF group. The rest of 110 patients aged 40 years and over with no more than five oocytes retrieved and non-male factor infertility undergoing first ICSI cycles were recruited in ICSI group.

Results

Our results showed the clinical pregnancy, live birth and miscarriage rates were similar between the IVF and ICSI groups (21.59% vs. 13.25%, P > 0.05; 12.16% vs. 6.02%, P > 0.05; 43.68% vs. 54.55%, P > 0.05; respectively), however, the implantation and cumulative live-birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF compared to the ICSI group (15.11% vs. 7.75%, 14.59% vs. 5.56%, P < 0.05), though the IVF group had a lower normal fertilization rate (61.56% vs. 76.00%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our study provides strong evidences that the conventional IVF exhibits advantages over the ICSI method in non-male factor infertility for advanced age patients with five or fewer oocytes retrieved.

Keywords

Advanced-age female In vitro fertilization Intracytoplasmic sperm injection Non-male factor infertility Cumulative live birth rate 

Notes

Author contributions

LH: data management/analysis, manuscript writing/editing, ZHB: data management/analysis, manuscript writing/editing, YGL: data collection, LM: manuscript editing, MSY: manuscript editing, ZHZ: data collection, WKL: study design, manuscript writing/editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Reproductive Medicine, Shandong University Research Ethics Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Supplementary material

404_2018_4696_MOESM1_ESM.doc (58 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 58 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Craig BM, Donovan KA, Fraenkel L, Watson V, Hawley S, Quinn GP (2014) A generation of childless women: lessons from the United States. Womens Health Issues 24(1):21–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ron-El R, Raziel A, Strassburger D, Schachter M, Kasterstein E, Friedler S (2000) Out-come of assisted reproductive technology in women over the age of 41. Fertil Steril 74:471–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ciray HN, Ulug U, Tosun S, Erden HF, Bahceci M (2006) Outcome of 1114 ICSI andembryo transfer cycles of women 40 years of age and over. Reprod Biomed Online 13:516–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toner J (2003) Age = egg quality, FSH level = egg quantity. Fertil Steril 79:491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terriou P, Giorgetti C, Auquier P et al (1996) Value of an embryo score to predictimplantation. Contracept Fertil Sex 24:657–660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Samuel FM, Peter RB (1996) In-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in women aged 40 years and over. Hum Reprod Update 2(6):459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hipp H, Crawford S, Kawwass JF, Boulet SL, Grainger DA, Kissin DM, Jamieson D (2017) National trends and outcomes of autologous in vitro fertilization cycles among women ages 40 years and older. J Assist Reprod Genet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0926-2 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pellestor F, Andreo B, Arnal F, Humeau C, Demaille J (2003) Maternal aging and chromosomal abnormalities: new data drawn from in vitro unfertilized human oocytes. Hum Genet 112:195–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-002-0852-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gilbert WM, Nesbitt TS, Danielsen B (1999) Childbearing beyond age 40: pregnancy outcome in 24,032 cases. Obstet Gynecol 93(1):9–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I (2004) Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 104:727–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, Warner L, Kawwass JF, Jamieson DJ (2015) Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA 313:255–263.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17985 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, Banker M, Adamson GD (2016) International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted reproductive technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Hum Reprod 31:1588–1609.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew082 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Puissant F, Van RM, Barlow P (1987) Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2:705–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gardner DK, Lane M (1997) Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update 3:367–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foong SG, Fleetham JA, Okeane JA, Scott SG, Tough SC, Greene CA (2006) A prospective randomized trial of conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in unexplained fertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 23(3):137–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-005-9008-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim HH, Bundorf MK, Behr B, McCallum SW (2007) Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril 88(3):622–628.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ou YC, Lan KC, Huang FJ et al (2010) Comparison of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in extremely low oocyte retrieval cycles. Fertil Steril 93(1):96–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fang C, Tang J, Huang R, Li LL, Zhang MF, Liang XY (2012) Comparison of IVF outcomes using conventional insemination and ICSI in ovarian cycles in which only one or two oocytes are obtained. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Pairs) 41(7):650–656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samer T, Weon YS, Ashley G, Grace Y, Tal S, Michael HD (2017) The role of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in non-male factor infertility in advanced maternal age. Hum Reprod 32(1):119–124.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew298 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    David FA (2015) To ICSI or not to ICSI? That was the question. J Assist Reprod Genet 32:1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0416-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dumoulin JM, Coonen E, Bras M, Bergers-Janssen JM, Ignoul-Vanvuchelen RC, Van Wissen LC, Geraedts JP, Evers JL (2001) Embryo development and chromosomal anomalies after ICSI: effect of the injection procedure. Hum Reprod 16:306–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woldringh GH, Kremer JA, Braat DD, Meuleman EJ (2005) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a review of risks and complications. BJU Int 96:749–753.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05708.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simen C, Pellicer A, Remohi J (1998) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients. Hum Reprod 13:2126–2129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller JE, Smith TT (2001) The effect of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and semen parameters on blastocyst development in vitro. Hum Reprod 16:918–924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Philippe V, Martine P, Caroline BL, Jean S, Hilaire B (2006) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection–an assisted reproduction technique that should make us cautious about imprinting deregulation. Reprod Sci 13(5):317–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsgi.2006.04.002 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Reproductive MedicineShandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive GeneticsJinanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.The Key laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology (Shandong University), Ministry of Education, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Reproductive MedicineJinanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations