Expanding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection: does it affect the embryological and clinical outcome?


Journal

Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 02 2021
Historique:
received: 25 05 2020
revised: 24 10 2020
pubmed: 29 12 2020
medline: 29 5 2021
entrez: 28 12 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Is the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte denudation/injection associated with embryological and clinical outcome after ICSI? Expanding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte denudation/injection is not associated with any clinically relevant impact on embryological or clinical outcome. The optimal time interval between ovulation triggering and insemination/injection appears to be 38-39 h and most authors agree that an interval of >41 h has a negative influence on embryological and clinical pregnancy outcomes. However, in ART centres with a heavy workload, respecting these exact time intervals is frequently challenging. Therefore, we questioned to what extent a wider time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection would affect embryological and clinical outcome in ICSI cycles. A single-centre retrospective cohort analysis was performed including 8811 ICSI cycles from 2010 until 2015. Regarding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection, seven categories were considered: <36 h, 36 h, 37 h, 38 h, 39 h, 40 h and ≥41 h. In all cases, denudation was performed immediately prior to injection. The main outcome measures were oocyte maturation, fertilization and embryo utilization rate (embryos adequate for transfer or cryopreservation) per fertilized oocyte. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were considered as secondary outcomes. Utilization rate, CPR and LBR were subdivided into two groups according to the day of embryo transfer: Day 3 or Day 5. During the study period, oocyte retrieval was routinely performed 36 h post-triggering except in the <36 h group. The interval of <36 h occurred only if OR was carried out before the planned 36 h trigger interval and was followed by immediate injection. Only cycles with fresh autologous gametes were included. The exclusion criteria were: injection with testicular/epididymal sperm, managed natural cycles, conventional IVF, combined conventional IVF/ICSI, preimplantation genetic testing and IVM cycles. Female age, number of oocytes, pre-preparation sperm concentration, post-preparation sperm concentration and motility, day of transfer, number of embryos transferred and quality of the best embryo transferred were identified as potential confounders. Among the seven interval groups, adjusted mean maturation rates ranged from 76.4% to 83.2% and differed significantly (P < 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant difference in adjusted mean fertilization rates (range 69.2-79.3%; P < 0.001). The adjusted maturation and fertilization rates were significantly higher when denudation/injection was performed >41 h post-triggering compared to 38 h post-triggering (reference group). Oocyte denudation/injection at <36 h post-triggering had no significant effect on maturation, fertilization or embryo utilization rates compared to injection at 38 h. No effect of the time interval was observed on CPRs and LBRs, after adjusting for potential confounders. When oocyte injection was performed before 36 h the adjusted analysis showed that compared to 38 h after ovulation triggering the chance of having a live birth tends to be lower although the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio 0.533, 95% CI: 0.252-1.126; P = 0.099). Injection ≥41 h post-triggering did not affect LBR compared to injection at 38 h post-ovulation. As this is a large retrospective study, the influence of uncontrolled variables cannot be excluded. These results should not be extrapolated to other ART procedures such as IVM, conventional IVF or injection with testicular/epididymal sperm. Our results indicate that the optimal injection time window may be less stringent than previously thought as both embryological and clinical outcome parameters were not significantly affected in our analysis. This is reassuring for busy ART centres that might not always be able to follow strict time intervals. No funding. The authors declare no conflict of interest related to the present study. N/A.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33367689
pii: 6047290
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa338
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

614-623

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

L T M Vandenberghe (LTM)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

S Santos-Ribeiro (S)

IVI-RMA Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

N De Munck (N)

IVI-RMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

B Desmet (B)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

W Meul (W)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

A De Vos (A)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

H Van de Velde (H)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

A Racca (A)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

H Tournaye (H)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

G Verheyen (G)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH