Impact of endometriosis on oocyte morphology in IVF-ICSI: retrospective study of a cohort of more than 6000 mature oocytes.
Adult
Birth Rate
Cell Size
Cohort Studies
Endometriosis
/ complications
Female
Fertilization in Vitro
France
/ epidemiology
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Infertility, Female
/ epidemiology
Male
Oocytes
/ pathology
Oogenesis
/ physiology
Ovarian Diseases
/ complications
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Rate
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
Treatment Outcome
Endometrioma
Endometriosis
In vitro fertilization
Oocyte morphology
Oocyte quality
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:
16 Oct 2021
16 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
12
04
2021
accepted:
11
07
2021
entrez:
17
10
2021
pubmed:
18
10
2021
medline:
4
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Infertility associated with endometriosis can be explained by several non-exclusive mechanisms. The oocyte plays a crucial role in determining embryonic competence and this is particularly relevant for in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes. According to some authors, the morphology of oocytes could also be a non-invasive marker of oocyte quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between endometriosis and oocyte morphology after controlled ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on a large oocyte cohort. Single-center comparative retrospective study in the academic In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) unit of the Lille University Hospital. A total of 596 women treated for IVF-ICSI with ejaculated spermatozoa for sperm alterations were included. They were classified as endometriosis (n = 175) or control groups (n = 401). The morphological evaluation of 2,016 mature oocytes from 348 cycles of patients with endometriosis was compared with that of 4,073 mature oocytes from 576 control cycles. The main outcome measures were Average Oocyte Quality Index (AOQI) and metaphase II oocyte morphological scoring system (MOMS). Comparison of groups was carried out by a mixed linear model and by a generalized estimation equation model with a "patient" random effect to consider that a patient might have several attempts. No difference in AOQI and MOMS scores was found between endometriosis and control women (adjusted p = 0.084 and 0.053, respectively). In case of endometriosis, there were significantly fewer metaphase II oocytes retrieved, embryos obtained, grade 1 embryos and number of cumulative clinical pregnancies compared to controls. In the endometriosis group, endometriosis surgery was associated with a reduced number of mature oocytes retrieved, and the presence of endometrioma(s) was associated with some abnormal oocyte shapes. Nevertheless, no difference concerning the AOQI and MOMS scores was found in these subgroups. Endometriosis does not have a negative impact on oocytes' morphology in IVF-ICSI. On December 16, 2019, the Institutional Review Board of the Lille University Hospital gave unrestricted approval for the anonymous use of all patients' clinical, hormonal and ultrasound records (reference DEC20150715-0002).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Infertility associated with endometriosis can be explained by several non-exclusive mechanisms. The oocyte plays a crucial role in determining embryonic competence and this is particularly relevant for in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes. According to some authors, the morphology of oocytes could also be a non-invasive marker of oocyte quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between endometriosis and oocyte morphology after controlled ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on a large oocyte cohort.
METHODS
METHODS
Single-center comparative retrospective study in the academic In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) unit of the Lille University Hospital. A total of 596 women treated for IVF-ICSI with ejaculated spermatozoa for sperm alterations were included. They were classified as endometriosis (n = 175) or control groups (n = 401). The morphological evaluation of 2,016 mature oocytes from 348 cycles of patients with endometriosis was compared with that of 4,073 mature oocytes from 576 control cycles. The main outcome measures were Average Oocyte Quality Index (AOQI) and metaphase II oocyte morphological scoring system (MOMS). Comparison of groups was carried out by a mixed linear model and by a generalized estimation equation model with a "patient" random effect to consider that a patient might have several attempts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
No difference in AOQI and MOMS scores was found between endometriosis and control women (adjusted p = 0.084 and 0.053, respectively). In case of endometriosis, there were significantly fewer metaphase II oocytes retrieved, embryos obtained, grade 1 embryos and number of cumulative clinical pregnancies compared to controls. In the endometriosis group, endometriosis surgery was associated with a reduced number of mature oocytes retrieved, and the presence of endometrioma(s) was associated with some abnormal oocyte shapes. Nevertheless, no difference concerning the AOQI and MOMS scores was found in these subgroups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Endometriosis does not have a negative impact on oocytes' morphology in IVF-ICSI.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2019, the Institutional Review Board of the Lille University Hospital gave unrestricted approval for the anonymous use of all patients' clinical, hormonal and ultrasound records (reference DEC20150715-0002).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34656130
doi: 10.1186/s12958-021-00798-x
pii: 10.1186/s12958-021-00798-x
pmc: PMC8522159
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
160Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Hum Reprod. 2017 Feb;32(2):315-324
pubmed: 27920089
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Jun;96(6):736-744
pubmed: 27317364
Lancet. 2010 Aug 28;376(9742):730-8
pubmed: 20801404
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2002;54 Suppl 1:52-8; discussion 59-62
pubmed: 12441661
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Mar;104(3):226-9
pubmed: 19105998
Fertil Steril. 2014 Apr;101(4):1031-7
pubmed: 24502890
Sci Rep. 2015 May 29;5:10779
pubmed: 26022105
Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Jul;31(1):9-19
pubmed: 25982092
Reprod Sci. 2016 Aug;23(8):1053-7
pubmed: 26865544
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018 Jul 19;4(1):9
pubmed: 30026507
Fertil Steril. 2017 Aug;108(2):284-288
pubmed: 28651959
Reprod Med Biol. 2019 Nov 25;19(1):75-81
pubmed: 31956288
J Clin Med. 2020 Aug 01;9(8):
pubmed: 32752267
Placenta. 2008 Oct;29 Suppl B:115-20
pubmed: 18762336
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017 Jan 24;15(1):8
pubmed: 28118836
Fertil Steril. 2015 Jan;103(1):112-8
pubmed: 25450303
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018 Mar;34(3):206-211
pubmed: 29057690
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Nov 29;9:725
pubmed: 30555421
Fertil Steril. 2008 Nov;90(5):1692-700
pubmed: 18249393
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;51:25-33
pubmed: 30245115
Fertil Steril. 2015 Feb;103(2):303-16
pubmed: 25497448
Fertil Steril. 1997 May;67(5):817-21
pubmed: 9130884
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Jan;39(1):91-97
pubmed: 30257599
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015 Dec;41(12):1912-20
pubmed: 26419975
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 02;10(12):e0143632
pubmed: 26630267
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):389-93
pubmed: 21645892
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Dec;39(6):885-892
pubmed: 31628036
Hum Reprod. 2010 Sep;25(9):2374-86
pubmed: 20616356
Reprod Biomed Online. 2009 Feb;18(2):235-43
pubmed: 19192344
Reprod Health. 2020 Jan 30;17(1):16
pubmed: 32000803
Hum Reprod Update. 2008 Sep-Oct;14(5):431-46
pubmed: 18603645
Hum Reprod Update. 2011 Jan-Feb;17(1):34-45
pubmed: 20639518
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Feb 03;10(2):
pubmed: 32028668
Fertil Steril. 2016 Apr;105(4):1063-1069.e3
pubmed: 26769302
Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Jan;14(1):40-8
pubmed: 17207330
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jun;26(6):1270-83
pubmed: 21502182
Hum Reprod Update. 2015 Nov-Dec;21(6):809-25
pubmed: 26168799
J Ovarian Res. 2017 Jul 12;10(1):43
pubmed: 28701212
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;51(1):10-20
pubmed: 29080259
Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Nov;13(5):661-7
pubmed: 17169176
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Dec;159(2):364-70
pubmed: 21824710
Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2017 Mar;6(1):34-41
pubmed: 29276652
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 30;(6):CD002118
pubmed: 27357126
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Mar;46(3):373-375
pubmed: 29503237
Endocr Rev. 2019 Aug 1;40(4):1048-1079
pubmed: 30994890
Hum Reprod. 2016 Nov;31(11):2442-2449
pubmed: 27619768
Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Feb;33(1):47-59
pubmed: 30503728
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2019 Aug 22;23(3):273-280
pubmed: 31091056
Fertil Steril. 2010 May 1;93(7):2431-2
pubmed: 19819438
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Jul;50:50-60
pubmed: 29576469
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008 May;277(5):389-93
pubmed: 17922285
Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Feb;14(2):166-74
pubmed: 17298718
Hum Reprod. 1992 Mar;7(3):379-90
pubmed: 1587948
Fertil Steril. 2014 Apr;101(4):988-93.e1
pubmed: 24602751
Fertil Steril. 2001 Feb;75(2):348-53
pubmed: 11172838
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Aug;35(8):1395-1399
pubmed: 29946760
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2019 Jun;11(2):169-176
pubmed: 31824637
Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep 1;33(9):1602-1618
pubmed: 30052961
Reprod Sci. 2020 Jun;27(6):1340-1349
pubmed: 31993996
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Jan;293(1):197-202
pubmed: 26246415
Fertil Steril. 2016 Apr;105(4):1085-1092.e7
pubmed: 26776906
J Clin Med. 2020 May 01;9(5):
pubmed: 32370059
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jul;102(1):151-159.e5
pubmed: 24825428
Cell Physiol Biochem. 2016;39(2):677-84
pubmed: 27442586
Hum Reprod. 2012 Aug;27 Suppl 1:i2-21
pubmed: 22811312
Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):748-54
pubmed: 23768986
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Mar;46(3):156-167
pubmed: 29540335
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep;47(7):265-274
pubmed: 29920379