medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2018, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2018; 86 (08)

Effect on reproductive outcomes by using

Barroso-Villa G, Valdespin-Fierro C, Álvarez-Lozano A, García-Montes LD, Robledo-Trejo G, Ávila-Lombardo R

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 539-547
PDF size: 415.73 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine if the live births delivery rate with the eliminating sperm positive to early apoptotic events is higher in couples with unexplained infertility.
Materials and Methods: A pilot randomized controlled trialA pilot and tripleblinded; using a parallel study of two groups. We included a total of 40 couples with unexplained infertility assigned in a 1:1 proportion either to the group A (sperm training method swim-up) or to the group B (swim-up sperm training method supplemented with the use of "magnetic-actived cell sorting (MACS)"). Subsequently, all samples were submitted to intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a fertilization technique. Finally, all embryos obtained were analyzed until the blastocyst stage, and all the transfers were performed in the same stage.
Results: There are no differences in the fertilization rate; however, with the use of "magnetic-actived cell sorting” there is a higher percentage of good quality embryos on day 3 (90.3% vs 99.5%, p = 0.03) and day 5 (77.3% vs 90.1%, p = ‹0.0001). In addition, a decrease in the percentage of arrested embryos was demonstrated (16.3% vs 7.9%, p = 0.01). Finally, implantation (42.1% vs 57.1%), clinical pregnancy (60% vs 80%) and live birth rates (55% vs 80%) increased; however, no statistically significant differences were reported.
Conclusions: The use of "magnetic-actived cell sorting” in couples with unexplained infertility improves embryonic development. Although there is no significant difference, a trend is observed in relation to the increase in the number of clinical pregnancies and live births.


REFERENCES

  1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Effectiveness and treatment for unexplained infertility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1475.

  2. Kably A, Salazar C, Serviere C, Velázquez G, y col. Consenso Nacional Mexicano de Reproducción Asistida. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2012;80(9):581-624.

  3. NICE - National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. London, UK, 2013 February, 63 p. (Clinical guideline; No. 156).

  4. Wang C, Swerdloff R. Limitations of semen analysis as a test of male fertility and anticipated needs from newer tests. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.021.

  5. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Manual de laboratorio de la OMS para el examen y procesamiento del ser humano, 5th ed. Ginebra: Prensa de la OMS, 2010.

  6. Said TM, et al. Advantage of combining magnetic cell separation with sperm preparation techniques. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61118-2.

  7. Barroso G, et al. Mitochondrial membrane potential integrity and plasma membrane translocation of phosphatidylserine as early apoptotic markers: a comparison of two different sperm subpopulations. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2005.06.046.

  8. De Vantéry A, et al. Removal of spermatozoa with externalized phosphatidylserine from sperm preparation in human assisted medical procreation: effects on viability, motility and mitochondrial membrane potential. https:// doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-7-1.

  9. Gandini L, et al. Study of apoptotic DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/15.4.830.

  10. Said TM, et al. ANDROLOGY LAB CORNER. Utility of magnetic cell separation as a molecular sperm preparation technique. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol. 107.003632.

  11. Tavalaee M, et al. Density gradient centrifugation before or after magnetic-activated cell sorting: which technique is more useful for clinical sperm selection? https://doi. org/10.1007/s10815-011-9686-6.

  12. Kruger TF, et al. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in vitro fertilization. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0015-0282(16)59660-5.

  13. Duran EH, et al. Sperm DNA quality predicts intrauterine insemination outcome: a prospective cohort study. https:// doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.12.3122.

  14. Schultz RM, Williams CJ. The science of ART. DOI: 10.1126/ science.1071741.

  15. Aitken RJ and Krausz C. Oxidative stress, DNA damage and the Y chromosome. Reproduction. 2001;122: 497-506.

  16. Henkel R, et al. Influence of deoxyribonucleic acid damage on fertilization and pregnancy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2003.09.044.

  17. Huang CC, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation negatively correlates with velocity and fertilization rates but might not affect pregnancy rates. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2004.08.042

  18. Dirican E, et al. Clinical outcome of magnetic activated cell sorting of non-apoptotic spermatozoa before density gradient centrifugation for assisted reproduction. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9250-1.

  19. Gil M, Sar-Shalom V, Melendez S, Checa M, et al. Sperm selection using magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:479-85.

  20. Romany L, et al. Removal of annexin V–positive sperm cells for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in ovum donation cycles does not improve reproductive outcome: a controlled and randomized trial in unselected males. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.001.

  21. Meseguer M, et al. Effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on pregnancy outcome depends on oocyte quality. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.055.

  22. Odom L, Segars J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e32834040a3.

  23. Gosden R, et al. Rare congenital disorders, imprinted genes, and assisted reproductive technology. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13592-1.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com