Pedro N. Barri
Autonomous University of Barcelona
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Pedro N. Barri.
Reproductive Biomedicine Online | 2003
Eli Y. Adashi; Pedro N. Barri; Richard L. Berkowitz; Peter Braude; Elizabeth Bryan; Judith Carr; Jean Cohen; John A. Collins; Paul Devroey; René Frydman; David K. Gardner; Marc Germond; Jan Gerris; Luca Gianaroli; Lars Hamberger; Colin M. Howles; Howard W. Jones; Bruno Lunenfeld; Andrew Pope; Meredith A. Reynolds; Z. Rosenwaks; Laura A. Schieve; Gamal I. Serour; Françoise Shenfield; Allan Templeton; André Van Steirteghem; Lucinda L. Veeck; Ulla-Britt Wennerholm
Multiple gestation is now recognized as a major problem associated with both assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and also with ovulation induction therapies. Although some countries are beginning to adopt measures to address this issue, either through legislation or the development of clinical guidelines, there is a clear need to ensure recognition and a consistent approach to this problem worldwide. In particular, there is a need to educate both healthcare professionals and the lay population that multiple gestations are not a desirable outcome for the infertile couple.
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | 2012
S. Samuel Kim; Jacques Donnez; Pedro N. Barri; A. Pellicer; Pasquale Patrizio; Z. Rosenwaks; Peter Nagy; Tommaso Falcone; Claus B. Andersen; Outi Hovatta; Hamish Wallace; Dror Meirow; Debra A. Gook; Seok Hyung Kim; Chii Ruey Tzeng; Shuetu Suzuki; Bunpei Ishizuka; Marie-Madeleine Dolmans
Fertility issues should be addressed to all patients in reproductive age before cancer treatment. In men, cryopreservation of sperm should be offered to all cancer patients in reproductive age regardless of the risk of gonadal failure. In women, the recommendation of fertility preservation should be individualized based on multiple factors such as the urgency of treatment, the age of the patient, the marital status, the regimen and dosage of cancer treatment.
Fertility and Sterility | 1995
Josep Santaló; Anna Veiga; Josep M. Calafell; G. Calderon; Francesca Vidal; Pedro N. Barri; Carles Giménes; José Egozcue
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility of using cytogenetic analysis in preimplantation diagnosis. DESIGN Two different biopsy protocols (chemical drilling and zona cutting) and two fixation methods were tested in a mouse model. Afterwards, the efficiency of obtaining chromosome preparations from untransferable human embryos depending on the method used to obtain the blastomeres (embryos biopsy or removal of the zona pellucida and blastomere disaggregation) was determined. The chances of obtaining chromosome preparations depending on the type of embryo (haploid, diploid, triploid, and apparently unfertilized) were also evaluated. RESULTS Results from the mouse model showed that chemical drilling yields better results than cutting in terms of metaphases per biopsied embryo and surviving rate after biopsy. In human embryos, biopsy of diploid embryos produced 46.6% chromosome preparations, while 29% were obtained after blastomere disaggregation and 20.4% when biopsying triploid embryos. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that the disaggregating procedure and triploid embryos cannot be considered as good models to assess the feasibility of cytogenetic analysis in preimplantation diagnosis. Poor chromosome quality and loss during fixation are the main problems to use cytogenetics in preimplantation diagnosis; a combination of cytogenetics and other techniques is suggested in cases of balanced translocations.
Gynecological Endocrinology | 2013
Francisca Martínez; Marta Devesa; Buenaventura Coroleu; Rosa Tur; Clara González; Montserrat Boada; Miquel Solé; Anna Veiga; Pedro N. Barri
Abstract Improvements in early diagnosis and treatment strategies in cancer patients have enabled younger women with cancer to survive. In addition to the stressful event of the diagnosis, patients with malignant diseases face the potential loss of the opportunity to have children. Preservation of fertility has become a challenging issue and it is still surrounded by controversies. On the basis of available evidence, a group of experts reached a consensus regarding the options for trying to preserve fertility in women with cancer: among established methods, in postpubertal women, oocyte cryopreservation is the preferred option, whereas ovarian tissue cryopreservation is the only possibility for prepubertal girls. Combining several strategies on an individual basis may improve the chances of success. Realistic information should be provided before any intervention is initiated. Counseling should offer support for patients and provide better care by understanding emotional needs, psychological predictors of distress and methods of coping. Early referral to the fertility specialist is essential as fertility preservation (FP) may improve quality of life in these patients. The information summarized here is intended to help specialists involved in the treatment of cancer and reproductive medicine to improve their understanding of procedures available for FP in young cancer patients.
Reproductive Biomedicine Online | 2014
Pedro N. Barri; Buenaventura Coroleu; Elisabet Clua; Rosa Tur; Montserrat Boada; Ignacio Rodríguez
In recent decades, the Western world has been experiencing a societal trend to prioritize the professional careers of women who postpone motherhood to about 40 years of age, when, unfortunately, natural reproductive potential declines. This is the reason why these women increasingly find it necessary to resort to oocyte donation to have a child. Thanks to the young age of the donors, the efficacy of oocyte donation is the highest of all assisted reproduction treatments and pregnancy rates achieved with this technique exceed 50%. Moreover, the large registries from ESHRE and ASRM show live birth rates close to this figure. However, there are patients who experience repeated failures in several oocyte-donation cycles, and so far oocyte-donation repeated implantation failure has not been clearly defined. This study analysed the results obtained from 2531 oocyte-donation cycles carried out in 1990 patients and defines oocyte-donation repeated implantation failure as failure to implant with more than two embryo transfers and more than four high-grade embryos transferred. This study observed this condition in 140 oocyte recipients (7%). Also, oocyte cohort size, uterine factors and systemic thrombophilias as important aetiological factors were identified were to offer new therapeutic strategies to patients.
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | 2014
Pedro N. Barri; A. Pellicer
The III World Congress of the International Society of Fertility Preservation (ISFP) was held in Valencia November 7th-9th, 2013. There was a substantial number of registrations (453) as compared to the previous meeting in 2011 with delegates from 47 countries, showing the worldwide increasing interest in this field.
Gynecological Endocrinology | 2017
Beatriz Alvaro Mercadal; Ignacio Rodríguez; Gemma Arroyo; Francisca Martínez; Pedro N. Barri; Buenaventura Coroleu
Abstract The number of oocytes retrieved in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is an independent factor influencing pregnancy rate (PR), and optimal number of oocytes would be between 10 and 15. This has led to the hypothesis that the identification of a suboptimal group of responders beforehand (4–9 oocytes retrieved) would allow physicians to optimize their PR. A retrospective observational study counting on 735 women doing an IVF treatment in our center was performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC), within suboptimal and optimal responders. We also analyzed the outcome of those patients with an estimated high probability of having an optimal response and the second cycles of those who did not get pregnant in the first cycle to observe the main significant traits that made them change from one group of responders to the other. Main results are that suboptimal responders account for almost half of our patients. Ovarian reserve markers (AMH and AFC) are significantly different in optimal and suboptimal responders, even when adjusted by age. There is a significant difference in the cumulative PR between both groups. Interestingly, 18.9% shifted from suboptimal to optimal response, and 36.9% from optimal to suboptimal.
Archive | 2016
Pedro N. Barri; Buenaventura Coroleu; Francisca Martínez
We will review in this chapter all the events that normally occur during the luteal phase of IVF cycles. Likewise, we will evaluate the different possibilities of luteal support that can be applied during the luteal phase of IVF cycles in which protocols of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation have been used.
Archive | 2016
Francisca Martínez; Pedro N. Barri; Buenaventura Coroleu; Marta Devesa
There has been a recent awakening of attention to luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) that could be explained by a combination of circumstances. First, there are physiological grounds to support the notion of this new approach [1–3], provided that it is possible to separate ovarian stimulation and endometrial maturation by stages in order to avoid desynchronisation between embryo and endometrium. Moreover, advances in cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos have made possible an almost total absence of gamete loss after cryopreservation [10, 20]. Also, it is increasingly common in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to use the antagonist protocol in gonadotropin stimulation and agonist triggering, postponing embryo transfer to a later cycle, not only to avoid the risk of OHS but also with the aim of improving embryo implantation and pregnancy rates [9, 11]. Finally, recent data show that embryos obtained after luteal-phase stimulation may provide optimum pregnancy rates ([13, 14, 17]).
Archive | 2016
Buenaventura Coroleu; Pedro N. Barri; Francisca Martínez
The poor responder is one of the challenges currently faced by assisted reproduction techniques. It is calculated that 9–14% of patients who undergo an IVF cycle present low response [1].