More blastocysts are produced from fewer oocytes in ICSI compared to IVF - results from a sibling oocytes study and definition of a new key performance indicator.
Blastocyst
ICSI
IVF
Key performance indicator
Sibling oocyte
Split insemination
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jul 2021
26 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
23
03
2021
accepted:
16
07
2021
entrez:
27
7
2021
pubmed:
28
7
2021
medline:
1
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Which fertilization method, between ICSI and IVF in split insemination treatments, has the highest clinical efficiency in producing clinically usable blastocyst? 211 infertile couples underwent split insemination treatments for a non-severe male factor. 1300 metaphase II (MII) oocytes were inseminated by conventional IVF and 1302 MII oocytes were micro-injected with the same partner's semen. Embryo development until blastocyst stage on day V and clinical outcomes were valuated trough conventional key performance indicators (KPI), and new KPIs such as blastocyst rate per used MII oocytes and the number of MII oocytes to produce one clinically usable blastocyst from ICSI and IVF procedures. The results were globally analyzed and according to ovarian stimulation protocol, infertility indication, and female age. The conventional KPI were online with the expected values from consensus references. From global results, 2.3 MII oocyte was needed to produce one clinically usable blastocyst after ICSI compared to 2.9 MII oocytes in IVF. On the same way, more blastocysts for clinical use were produced from fewer MII oocytes in ICSI compared to IVF in all sub-groups. In split insemination treatments, the yield of clinically usable blastocysts was always superior in ICSI compared to IVF. The new KPI "number of needed oocytes to produce one clinically usable embryo" tests the clinical efficiency of the IVF laboratory.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Which fertilization method, between ICSI and IVF in split insemination treatments, has the highest clinical efficiency in producing clinically usable blastocyst?
METHODS
METHODS
211 infertile couples underwent split insemination treatments for a non-severe male factor. 1300 metaphase II (MII) oocytes were inseminated by conventional IVF and 1302 MII oocytes were micro-injected with the same partner's semen. Embryo development until blastocyst stage on day V and clinical outcomes were valuated trough conventional key performance indicators (KPI), and new KPIs such as blastocyst rate per used MII oocytes and the number of MII oocytes to produce one clinically usable blastocyst from ICSI and IVF procedures.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results were globally analyzed and according to ovarian stimulation protocol, infertility indication, and female age. The conventional KPI were online with the expected values from consensus references. From global results, 2.3 MII oocyte was needed to produce one clinically usable blastocyst after ICSI compared to 2.9 MII oocytes in IVF. On the same way, more blastocysts for clinical use were produced from fewer MII oocytes in ICSI compared to IVF in all sub-groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In split insemination treatments, the yield of clinically usable blastocysts was always superior in ICSI compared to IVF. The new KPI "number of needed oocytes to produce one clinically usable embryo" tests the clinical efficiency of the IVF laboratory.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34311751
doi: 10.1186/s12958-021-00804-2
pii: 10.1186/s12958-021-00804-2
pmc: PMC8311920
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
116Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Fertil Steril. 1999 Dec;72(6):1041-4
pubmed: 10593378
Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep 1;33(9):1586-1601
pubmed: 30032255
Fertil Steril. 2020 Aug;114(2):239-245
pubmed: 32654822
Theriogenology. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):73-80
pubmed: 17055564
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Nov;35(5):494-510
pubmed: 28784335
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013 Jun;30(5):703-10
pubmed: 23585186
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008 Jan;25(1):23-8
pubmed: 18204894
Fertil Steril. 2020 Jul;114(1):6-8
pubmed: 32532491
Reprod Biol. 2018 Sep;18(3):301-311
pubmed: 29801776
Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Jun;12(6):730-6
pubmed: 16792849
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Sep;37(9):2081-2092
pubmed: 32578032
Hum Reprod Update. 2007 Nov-Dec;13(6):591-605
pubmed: 17846105
Fertil Steril. 2014 Mar;101(3):656-663.e1
pubmed: 24355045
Hum Reprod. 1993 Jul;8(7):1061-6
pubmed: 8408487
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Jan;38(1):95-100
pubmed: 33118102
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015 May;58(3):217-22
pubmed: 26023671
Fertil Steril. 2020 Jul;114(1):24-30
pubmed: 32532485
Pak J Med Sci. 2013 Sep;29(5):1221-4
pubmed: 24353724
Fertil Steril. 2009 Nov;92(5):1520-4
pubmed: 19828144
Hum Reprod. 2019 Jan 01;34(1):37-43
pubmed: 30517659
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 07;17(1):30
pubmed: 30845973
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997 Dec;75(2):207-10
pubmed: 9447375
Fertil Steril. 2005 May;83(5):1397-403
pubmed: 15866575
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2017 Jun;44(2):96-104
pubmed: 28795049
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2019 Dec;65(6):458-464
pubmed: 31522570
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jan;32(1):119-124
pubmed: 27852688
Lancet. 1978 Aug 12;2(8085):366
pubmed: 79723
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Apr;36(4):647-654
pubmed: 30627992
Ann Med. 1997 Jun;29(3):207-14
pubmed: 9240626
Hum Reprod. 2002 Feb;17(2):362-9
pubmed: 11821279
Lancet. 1992 Jul 4;340(8810):17-8
pubmed: 1351601
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Dec;37(12):2929-2945
pubmed: 33073301
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Oct;36(10):2067-2076
pubmed: 31440957
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 May;32(5):691-7
pubmed: 25758990
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jun 1;32(6):1155-1159
pubmed: 28369394