Hana Nahum

Poor outcome with round spermatid injection in azoospermic patients with maturation arrest

OBJECTIVEnTo compare the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and round spermatid injection (ROSI), both obtained by testicular sperm extraction (TESE), and to compare the results of fresh versus frozen ROSI.nnnDESIGNnRetrospective study.nnnSETTINGnAn IVF unit at a university hospitalPatient(s): Eighteen infertile couples with nonobstructive azoospermia.nnnINTERVENTION(S)nTESE with ROSI or ICSI of mature spermatozoa into metaphase II oocytes was performed. The resulting embryos were transferred to female partners. The spare round spermatids were frozen.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)nFertilization and cleavage rates, embryo quality, and clinical pregnancy rates.nnnRESULT(S)nSeventeen ROSI cycles and six ICSI cycles were compared. Fertilization rate following ROSI (44.9%) was significantly lower than with ICSI (69%). A significantly higher rate of cleavage arrest occurred following ROSI (40.8%) as compared to ICSI (8.2%). The morphology of embryos resulting from ROSI was significantly poorer. No pregnancies were achieved following ROSI as compared to a 50% clinical pregnancy rate in the ICSI group. The fertilization and cleavage rates following ROSI with fresh versus frozen-thawed spermatids were comparable.nnnCONCLUSION(S)nIn azoospermic patients with maturation arrest at the stage of round spermatids the efficiency of ROSI appears to be extremely poor. The role of ROSI in the treatment of nonobstructive azoospermia should be reevaluated.

Follicle cysts after menstrual versus midluteal administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog in in vitro fertilization

The incidence and behavior of follicle cysts after different timing of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog (GnRH-a) administration was studied in 321 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Group M included 198 cycles in which GnRH-a was injected at menstruation. Of these, 171 (88.6%) were without cysts (group M1) and 27 (13.6%) with cysts (group M2). Group L comprised of 123 cycles in which GnRH-a was administered in the midluteal phase. Of them, 70 (56.9%) were without cystic finding (group L1), 19 (15.4%) with follicle cysts (group L2), and 34 cases (27.6%) with visible corpus luteum at the time of GnRH-a initiation (group L3). Both groups with follicle cysts demonstrated a higher luteinizing hormone peak and continuous elevated estradiol (E2) levels. In group M2, the E2 rise and the cysts persisted longer compared with group L2. Gonadotropin treatment was accordingly postponed until the cysts regressed spontaneously. Only two cases of group M2 required aspiration of the cysts. Follicle cyst formation is not related to the timing of GnRH-a administration and their occurrence did not have adverse effects on IVF outcome.

Timing intra-Fallopian transfer procedures.

With the gradual decline in the use of zygote intra-Fallopian transfer (ZIFT), current practice is to offer ZIFT almost exclusively to patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF). For practical reasons, the procedure is sometimes deferred by 1 day and embryo intra-Fallopian transfer (EIFT) is performed. The aim of the present study was to compare the reproductive outcome of ZIFT versus EIFT. In a retrospective analysis, 176 patients who failed in 7.65 +/- 3.7 previous IVF cycles underwent 200 ZIFT and 73 EIFT procedures. Implantation and live birth rates were compared for both groups. Patients in both groups were found comparable for demographic and clinical parameters. Similar numbers of oocytes were retrieved and fertilized in both groups, and 5.2 +/- 1.2 zygotes/embryos were transferred. Implantation and live birth rates (10.5 and 26.5% versus 10.9 and 24.7% for ZIFT and EIFT respectively) were comparable. It is concluded that tubal transfer of zygotes and day-2 cleavage stage embryos are equally effective.

Zygote intrafallopian transfer among patients with repeated implantation failure

To summarize the experience of a single center with laparoscopic zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) performed exclusively among patients with high‐order repeated implantation failure (RIF) following in vitro fertilization‐embryo transfer (IVF‐ET).

Blastocyst culture and transfer: lessons from an unselected, difficult IVF population

Blastocyst-stage transfer has yielded excellent results in good prognosis IVF patients, but its efficacy in the general IVF population has not been clearly demonstrated. The objective of this study was to compare cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage transfer in a mixed, general IVF population. In a prospective, quasi-randomized study, 152 patients underwent 164 treatment cycles. Patients were allocated to cleavage-stage (group 1; n = 94) or blastocyst-stage (group 2; n = 70) transfer. Main outcome measures included implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Implantation (11.2% versus 15.5%), clinical pregnancy (34% versus 21%) and live birth rates per transfer (21.3% versus 13.8%) and per started cycle (21.3% versus 11.4%) were all comparable for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed that blastocyst culture and transfer reduced the odds for pregnancy in the general IVF population and defined a good prognosis group for blastocyst transfer. Introducing blastocyst culture and transfer to all IVF patients is not advantageous. Blastocyst transfer should be offered primarily to good prognosis patients, and this group should be specifically defined in each clinical set-up.

Controlled ovarian stimulation using a long gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol: a proof of concept and feasibility study.

Background/Aims: To evaluate the feasibility of a long protocol of controlled ovarian stimulation prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist used for pituitary and ovarian suppression. Methods: Thirty patients undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection were randomized into two groups. The control group (n = 16) received a standard flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. Ovarian stimulation consisted of 225 IU/day of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for 5 days, followed by 225 IU/day of human menopausal gonadotropin until human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration. The study group (n = 14) received 0.25 mg of GnRH antagonist daily for 7 days, thereafter, upon confirmation of pituitary and ovarian suppression, ovarian stimulation was commenced with the same protocol as used in the control group. Hormone and follicle dynamics, as well as laboratory characteristics and cycle outcome, were compared for both groups. Results: Both groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Pituitary and ovarian suppression were effectively achieved in 12/14 patients in the study group. The duration of ovarian stimulation and gonadotropin consumption were similar in both groups, as was also the number and size of follicles on hCG day. Conclusion: The results of our study confirm the feasibility of a long GnRH antagonist protocol. This regimen could become another option to optimize GnRH antagonist protocols, and should thus be further explored.