卵母细胞质量内单精子注射与体外受精在卵母细胞检索率低的非男性因素不孕症患者中的比较:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Open Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080688
Shaomi Zhu, Hengli Li, Zili Lv, Xin Liang, Liang Dong, Dongmei Tian
{"title":"卵母细胞质量内单精子注射与体外受精在卵母细胞检索率低的非男性因素不孕症患者中的比较:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Shaomi Zhu, Hengli Li, Zili Lv, Xin Liang, Liang Dong, Dongmei Tian","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effects of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on the clinical outcomes of non-male factor patients aged >35 with three or fewer oocytes retrieved.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Reproductive centre of a university-affiliated hospital in China.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>547 women with non-male factor infertility who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment with three or fewer oocytes retrieved were identified from June 2019 to May 2022. Of these 547 patients, 334 were treated with IVF and 213 with ICSI.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcomes were normal fertilisation rate, live birth rate per transfer and cumulative live birth rate per retrieval.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the proportion of primary infertility, which was higher in the ICSI group (17.66% vs 32.86%, p=0.000). Compared with the IVF group, the ICSI group showed higher normal fertilisation rate and lower cycle cancellation rate (65.99% vs 76.56%, p=0.002; 33.53% vs 24.41%, p=0.023). However, no significant differences were found in clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (23.86% vs 18.92%, p=0.545), miscarriage rate per fresh embryo transfer (19.05% vs 28.57%, p=0.595), live birth rate per transfer (17.05% vs 13.51%, p=0.623), cumulative clinical pregnancy rate per retrieval (12.87% vs 11.27%, p=0.576) and cumulative live birth rate per retrieval (9.28% vs 6.57%, p=0.261) between the two groups (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In non-male factor ART cycles, ICSI was not associated with improved pregnancy outcomes in older women with a low number of oocytes retrieved. Routine use of ICSI is not recommended in older women who are infertile due to non-male factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared with in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male factor infertility with low oocyte retrieval: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Shaomi Zhu, Hengli Li, Zili Lv, Xin Liang, Liang Dong, Dongmei Tian\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080688\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effects of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on the clinical outcomes of non-male factor patients aged >35 with three or fewer oocytes retrieved.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Reproductive centre of a university-affiliated hospital in China.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>547 women with non-male factor infertility who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment with three or fewer oocytes retrieved were identified from June 2019 to May 2022. Of these 547 patients, 334 were treated with IVF and 213 with ICSI.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcomes were normal fertilisation rate, live birth rate per transfer and cumulative live birth rate per retrieval.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the proportion of primary infertility, which was higher in the ICSI group (17.66% vs 32.86%, p=0.000). Compared with the IVF group, the ICSI group showed higher normal fertilisation rate and lower cycle cancellation rate (65.99% vs 76.56%, p=0.002; 33.53% vs 24.41%, p=0.023). However, no significant differences were found in clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (23.86% vs 18.92%, p=0.545), miscarriage rate per fresh embryo transfer (19.05% vs 28.57%, p=0.595), live birth rate per transfer (17.05% vs 13.51%, p=0.623), cumulative clinical pregnancy rate per retrieval (12.87% vs 11.27%, p=0.576) and cumulative live birth rate per retrieval (9.28% vs 6.57%, p=0.261) between the two groups (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In non-male factor ART cycles, ICSI was not associated with improved pregnancy outcomes in older women with a low number of oocytes retrieved. Routine use of ICSI is not recommended in older women who are infertile due to non-male factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080688\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080688","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究体外受精(IVF)和卵胞浆内单精子显微注射(ICSI)对年龄大于35岁、取卵细胞数少于或等于3个的非男性因素患者临床结局的影响:设计:回顾性队列研究:地点:中国某大学附属医院生殖中心:2019年6月至2022年5月期间,547名接受辅助生殖技术(ART)治疗的非男性因素不孕症女性取卵数在3个或3个以下。在这547名患者中,334人接受了体外受精治疗,213人接受了卵胞浆内单精子显微注射治疗:主要结果为正常受精率、每次移植的活产率和每次取卵的累积活产率:结果:两组患者的基线特征相当,但原发性不孕的比例在ICSI组中更高(17.66% vs 32.86%,P=0.000)。与试管婴儿组相比,ICSI 组的正常受精率更高,周期取消率更低(65.99% vs 76.56%,P=0.002;33.53% vs 24.41%,P=0.023)。然而,每次移植的临床妊娠率(23.86% vs 18.92%,p=0.545)、每次新鲜胚胎移植的流产率(19.05% vs 28.57%,p=0.595)、每次移植的活产率(17.05% vs 13.51%,p=0.623)、每次取卵的累积临床妊娠率(12.87% vs 11.27%,p=0.576)和每次取卵的累积活产率(9.28% vs 6.57%,p=0.261)两组间差异无统计学意义(p>0.05):在非男性因素抗逆转录病毒疗法周期中,对于取卵数较少的高龄女性而言,卵胞浆内单精子显微注射与妊娠结局的改善无关。对于因非男性因素导致不孕的高龄女性,不建议常规使用卵胞浆内单精子显微注射。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared with in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male factor infertility with low oocyte retrieval: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To investigate the effects of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on the clinical outcomes of non-male factor patients aged >35 with three or fewer oocytes retrieved.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Reproductive centre of a university-affiliated hospital in China.

Participants: 547 women with non-male factor infertility who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment with three or fewer oocytes retrieved were identified from June 2019 to May 2022. Of these 547 patients, 334 were treated with IVF and 213 with ICSI.

Outcome measures: The primary outcomes were normal fertilisation rate, live birth rate per transfer and cumulative live birth rate per retrieval.

Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the proportion of primary infertility, which was higher in the ICSI group (17.66% vs 32.86%, p=0.000). Compared with the IVF group, the ICSI group showed higher normal fertilisation rate and lower cycle cancellation rate (65.99% vs 76.56%, p=0.002; 33.53% vs 24.41%, p=0.023). However, no significant differences were found in clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (23.86% vs 18.92%, p=0.545), miscarriage rate per fresh embryo transfer (19.05% vs 28.57%, p=0.595), live birth rate per transfer (17.05% vs 13.51%, p=0.623), cumulative clinical pregnancy rate per retrieval (12.87% vs 11.27%, p=0.576) and cumulative live birth rate per retrieval (9.28% vs 6.57%, p=0.261) between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusions: In non-male factor ART cycles, ICSI was not associated with improved pregnancy outcomes in older women with a low number of oocytes retrieved. Routine use of ICSI is not recommended in older women who are infertile due to non-male factors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Pain during prolonged sitting in subjects with patellofemoral pain in Dutch physical therapy clinics: an online questionnaire-based analysis. Post-COVID in healthcare workers and its consequences on quality of life, activities, participation, need for rehabilitation and care experiences: protocol of a cohort study. Association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Determinants of inpatient satisfaction and hospital recommendation: experiences from a cross-sectional study of a tertiary general hospital in China. Development and validation of a clinical prediction tool to estimate survival in community-dwelling adults living with dementia: a protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1