Abstract
Purpose
To compare the clinical outcomes of extremely poor responders with one or two oocytes who receive in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
Methods
A retrospective study was carried out on 2572 patients with one or two oocytes retrieved from 2013 to 2022, of which 2159 patients were scheduled to receive IVF treatment and 413 patients were scheduled to receive ICSI treatment. The laboratory parameters and clinical outcomes were compared with adjusted multivariate regression and propensity score (PS) matching.
Results
In both matched and non-matched cohorts, The ICSI group had a significantly higher total fertilization failure (TFF) rate and lower multiple fertilization rate than the IVF group (P < 0.05). After matching, the cumulative pregnancy rate per initiated cycle in the IVF group was significantly higher than in the ICSI group (28.7% vs 21.7, P < 0.05). However, the difference in cumulative live births did not reach statistical significance (21.2% vs 17.2%, P > 0.05). The adjusted odds ratios for TFF, cumulative pregnancy, and cumulative live birth comparing ICSI versus IVF in multivariate models were 1.65(95% CI: 1.12, 2.43), 0.65(95% CI: 0.46, 0.91), and 0.76(95% CI: 0.55, 1.04), respectively.
Conclusion
In poor responders with one or two oocytes retrieved, ICSI insemination cannot avoid TFF, and it may hamper the cumulative pregnancy rate.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-025-08033-3.
Keywords: IVF, ICSI, Normal fertilization rate, Total fertilization failure rate, Cumulative live birth rate, Poor responder
What does this study add to the clinical work
| The use of ICSI in patients with extremely poor responders is usually driven by fear of total fertilization failure. However, our data suggest that using ICSI in these patients further hampers fertilization. |
Introduction
Since first described in 1992, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has become the gold standard for treating severe male factor infertility in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) [1]. Nowadays, over half of the ART cycles are inseminated with this technique according to the data of ICMART [2]. The fact that the number of ICSI cycles outnumbers the ART cycles involving male factor infertility [3] and varies across geographical regions[2] suggests that the use of ICSI may be driven by factors beyond male infertility, such as clinic-specific policy [4] or patients’ attitudes [5, 6].
Current evidence shows that ICSI does not improve pregnancy rates or live birth rates in non-male factor infertility [7–9]. The popularity of ICSI is possibly driven by the fear of an expected total fertilization failure during conventional IVF treatment. The fear might be irrational in patients with a normal ovarian response, as the absolute incidence of TFF is rare in the general population [10]. For patients with only one or two oocytes retrieved, however, the chance of fertilization might be a game of all or none. An intracytoplasmic sperm injection could bypass several pre-fertilization hindrances, confirming the one selected spermatozoon reaches the oocyte, and be deemed as a method to overcome the frustrating TFF [11, 12]. However, successful fertilization is not only determined by the entry of the spermatozoon into the oocyte in ICSI cycles [13]. The developmental competence of the spermatozoon selected by the embryologist cannot be guaranteed, as it also bypasses the natural selection barriers. Additionally, mechanical damage to the oocytes is also a potential concern [14].
Practically, using ICSI in patients with one or two oocytes does not always promise a better fertilization rate. Poorer or equalized fertilization chances were reported along with improved fertilization rates among previous studies comparing ICSI and conventional IVF in patients with one or two oocytes [5, 15, 16]. The heterogeneity could be due to the low statistical power and high patient heterogeneity in such populations. Furthermore, meta-analyses focusing on advanced maternal age populations indicate that ICSI may not significantly enhance fertilization outcomes when oocyte yield is suboptimal [17, 18]. We postulate that the utilization of ICSI in patients with one to two oocytes may offer little substantial clinical advantages. Since a major reason for ICSI overuse is the pressure on the clinicians from the patients` intolerance to TFF, an informed consult would be essential. The present study aimed to provide further evidence concerning the association between ICSI and TFF in patients with one or two oocytes, with a larger sample size and matched indications. In addition, previous evidences were summarized and pooled for further reference.
Materials and methods
Study subjects
A retrospective study of infertile patients treated at the Reproductive Medicine Center of Xiamen University Affiliated Chenggong Hospital, Xiamen, China, from 2013 to 2022, was included and analyzed. Inclusion criteria were poor responders with one or two oocytes retrieved in a cycle, patients with a complete cycle where live births had been achieved or no surplus frozen embryos left, and patients with a total motile sperm count (TMC) higher than 2 × 106 in their male counterparts. Exclusion criteria were severe male factor cases, frozen–thawed sperm, and surgical sperm collection. The reasons for ICSI in the included patients were borderline or suboptimal semen parameters. The suboptimal semen parameters were considered when the semen parameters were above the ICSI indications in our clinic (TMC ≤ 2 × 106), but lower than the WHO criteria [19] (concentration ≥ 15 million/ml, motility ≥ 40%, morphology ≥ 4%).
Institutional review board approval for this study was obtained from the Ethical Committee of Xiamen University Affiliated Chenggong Hospital. Informed consent was not necessary because this retrospective research was based on non-identifiable records.
Laboratory procedures and embryo assessment
Oocyte retrieval was performed by transvaginal ultrasound, and follicles were aspirated by a 17 G needle (Cook Medical). Repeated follicular flushing was performed when the oocyte was not retrieved after the initial puncture to maximize the chances of recovery. On the same day, semen was collected in sterile containers and evaluated for sperm density, motility, and morphology according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria [19]. Sperm was prepared by density gradient centrifugation, combined with the swim-up method, then it was incubated in an incubator (C200, Labotect) at 37 °C, 6% CO2, and 5% O2 in a humidified atmosphere.
Consultation and decision-making were carried out following OPU for patents with suboptimal semen parameters. IVF is generally recommended unless the patient insists on ICSI [20]. According to the patient’s prior informed consent, the oocytes were assigned to conventional IVF or ICSI. Insemination was performed 4–6 h after oocyte retrieval, and the sperm concentration was adjusted to 1.5 ~ 3 million/ml for IVF insemination. For ICSI cycles, oocytes were denuded 2 h after oocyte retrieval and ICSI was scheduled 42 h following triggering.
Fertilization was judged according to whether the pronucleus appeared at 17 ± 1 h after insemination. Normal fertilization is defined as the observation of two pronuclei (2PN), and multiple pronuclei (MPN) is defined as the presence of ≥ 3 pronuclei. To compare the fertilization rate between IVF and ICSI cycles, the total fertilization rate was defined as fertilized oocyte per retrieved oocyte in both IVF cycles and ICSI cycles. Normal fertilization rate was defined as 2PN zygotes per oocyte. A cycle was considered TFF when no sign of fertilization was observed in all oocytes.
Embryos were cultured in cleavage medium (K-SICM, COOK) on days 1–3 after fertilization, and then in blastocyst medium (K-SIBM, COOK) on days 4–7. According to the Istanbul Consensus embryo evaluation criteria [21], embryos on day 3 were evaluated. Embryos with very poor morphology, arrested embryos, and embryos with all blastomere degenerated or lysed were considered not available for ET. The patients received extended culture to blastocyst stage according to their preference. For blastocyst assessment, we used the Gardner grading system [22], The score of high-quality blastocysts was ≥ 4BB. Blastocysts with poor morphological score (≤ CC) or low expansion grade (grade 1, 2) were not cryopreserved or transferred. For cryopreservation, a vitrification protocol employing 15% dimethyl sulfoxide, 15% ethylene glycol, and 0.6 M sucrose as cryoprotectants was used for cryopreserved. All embryos were preserved in an open vitrification device (Lifecarrier, Sunlight, Shishou, China).
In either fresh cycles or FET cycles, the embryo transfer was scheduled on day 3 if cleavage-stage embryos were transferred and scheduled on day 5 if blastocysts were transferred. Embryo transfer was performed using a COOK catheter (COOK, IN, USA) under trans-abdominal ultrasound guidance. Fourteen days after embryo transfer, serum β-HCG level was measured to determine whether pregnancy occurred. Clinical pregnancy was defined by the presence of a gestational sac, and live birth was defined as the live birth of a fetus over 28 weeks of gestation. Cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) refers to the proportion of individuals achieving at least one live birth from a complete cycle, including all subsequent fresh and frozen embryo transfers [23]. Similarly, the cumulative pregnancy rate measures the proportion of individuals achieving at least one clinical pregnancy per complete cycle. A complete cycle is defined as a cycle that achieves live birth or all embryo transfer. The primary outcomes were CLBR and cumulative pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were total fertilization failure (TFF) and normal fertilization rate.
Statistical analysis
For PS matching, the covariates include female age, history of spontaneous miscarriage, parity, OPU order, diagnosis of endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome, the duration of infertility, female BMI, basal FSH, basal LH, AFC, male age, male BMI, sperm normal morphology rate, TMC, ovarian stimulation protocol, gonadotropin starting dose, oocyte yield, and extended culture. After the two groups were matched by the propensity score matching 1:1 ratio with a caliper of 0.2, case and control discards were permitted. The matching was carried out with a MatchIt package.
Standard differences (D) were calculated to evaluate the balance of the distribution of the baseline characteristics between the two groups before and after PS matching using a cobalt package. D < 0.1 was used as the threshold to indicate a negligible difference in the mean or prevalence of a covariate between groups.
Multivariate analyses were also carried out in the unmatched and matched cohorts adjusted for the important covariates mentioned above to assess the association between the outcomes (TFF, cumulative pregnancy, CLBR) and insemination protocols.
Continuous variables were represented as median [first quartile, third quartile] or median [Min, Max], and mean (SD), while categorical variables were represented as N (percentage). Wilcoxon test was used for continuous variables, and the Chi-square test was used for categorical variables. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. All analyses were based on R software [24].
Result
In this study, a total of 2572 patients with fewer than three oocytes were analyzed, including 2159 patients receiving IVF and 413 patients receiving ICSI. After PS matching, a total of 401 patients for each group were included in the analysis. The basal characteristics before and after PS matching are shown in Table 1. The patients with ICSI may have high OPU order and male age, lower sperm normal morphology rates, and TMC in unmatched cohort (absolute value of D > 0.1). After matching, the two groups were similar in baseline characteristics (absolute value of D < 0.1). Distributions of the PSs before and after PS matching are shown in Supplementary (Supplementary Figure S1).
Table 1.
Basic characteristics before and after PS matching for OPU cycles
| Variables | Before matching | D* | After matching | D* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVF | ICSI | IVF | ICSI | |||
| (N = 2159) | (N = 413) | (N = 401) | (N = 401) | |||
| Female age, year | 35.0 [31.0, 39.0] | 36.0 [32.0, 39.0] | 0.115 | 36.0 [32.0, 40.0] | 36.0 [32.0, 39.0] | − 0.002 |
| History of spontaneous miscarriage (%) | ||||||
| 0 | 1790 (82.9%) | 344 (83.3%) | 0.004 | 333 (83.0%) | 334 (83.3%) | 0.003 |
| 1 | 303 (14.0%) | 58 (14.0%) | 0.000 | 60 (15.0%) | 56 (14.0%) | − 0.010 |
| 2 | 45 (2.1%) | 6 (1.5%) | − 0.006 | 3 (0.7%) | 6 (1.5%) | 0.008 |
| ≧3 | 21 (1.0%) | 5 (1.2%) | 0.002 | 5 (1.2%) | 5 (1.2%) | 0 |
| Parity ≧1 (%) | 686 (31.8%) | 123 (29.8%) | − 0.020 | 121 (30.2%) | 121 (30.2%) | 0 |
| OPU order (%) | ||||||
| 1 | 1347 (62.4%) | 95 (23.0%) | − 0.394 | 88 (21.9%) | 95 (23.7%) | 0.018 |
| 2 | 521 (24.1%) | 176 (42.6%) | 0.185 | 188 (46.9%) | 173 (43.1%) | − 0.037 |
| ≧3 | 291 (13.5%) | 142 (34.4%) | 0.209 | 125 (31.2%) | 133 (33.2%) | 0.020 |
| Endometriosis (%) | 282 (13.1%) | 47 (11.4%) | − 0.017 | 51 (12.7%) | 47 (11.7%) | − 0.010 |
| PCOs (%) | 45 (2.1%) | 13 (3.1%) | 0.011 | 12 (3.0%) | 11 (2.7%) | − 0.003 |
| Duration of infertility, year | 3.90 [2.00,6.00] | 5.00 [2.70,7.50] | 0.234 | 4.40 [2.00, 8.00] | 4.80 [2.60, 7.50] | − 0.042 |
| Female BMI, kg/cm2 | 21.8 [20.1,23.2] | 22.0 [20.0,23.1] | 0.010 | 21.9 [20.3, 23.2] | 21.9 [20.0, 23.1] | − 0.027 |
| Basal FSH, IU/l | 8.90 [0.40, 1210] | 9.32 [1.88, 698] | 0.039 | 9.17 [2.31, 34.9] | 9.32 [1.88, 35.0] | − 0.002 |
| Basal LH, IU/l | 3.85 [0.01, 30.7] | 3.78 [0.880, 62.6] | − 0.007 | 3.80 [0.12, 30.4] | 3.75 [0.88, 62.6] | − 0.003 |
| Antral follicle count | 5.00 [3.00,7.00] | 5.00 [3.00,7.00] | − 0.021 | 5.00 [3.00, 7.00] | 5.00 [3.00, 7.00] | − 0.020 |
| Male age, year | 36.0 [32.0,40.0] | 37.0 [33.0,41.0] | 0.134 | 37.0 [33.0, 41.0] | 37.0 [33.0, 41.0] | − 0.015 |
| Male BMI, kg/cm2 | 23.9 [21.8,25.9] | 23.9 [21.9,26.0] | − 0.000 | 23.9 [21.6, 26.0] | 24.0 [21.9, 26.0] | 0.021 |
| Sperm normal morphology rate (%) | 6.00 [4.00,9.00] | 4.50 [3.00,8.00] | − 0.132 | 5.00 [3.50, 8.00] | 4.80 [3.00, 8.00] | 0.020 |
| Total motile sperm count(× 106) | 55.9 [28.3,100] | 27.6 [8.34,63.0] | − 0.572 | 37.6 [20.0, 67.0] | 29.2 [8.39, 63.2] | − 0.074 |
| Ovarian stimulation protocols (%) | ||||||
| Luteal phase | 87 (4.0%) | 35 (8.5%) | 0.044 | 36 (9.0%) | 31 (7.7%) | − 0.013 |
| Mild stimulation | 128 (5.9%) | 21 (5.1%) | − 0.008 | 20 (5.0%) | 21 (5.2%) | 0.003 |
| GnRH antagonist | 1029 (47.7%) | 179 (43.3%) | − 0.043 | 183 (45.6%) | 177 (44.1%) | − 0.015 |
| GnRH agonist | 725 (33.6%) | 138 (33.4%) | − 0.002 | 135 (33.7%) | 133 (33.2%) | − 0.005 |
| Other protocols | 12 (0.6%) | 3 (0.7%) | 0.002 | 2 (0.5%) | 3 (0.7%) | 0.002 |
| Natural cycle | 178 (8.2%) | 37 (9.0%) | 0.007 | 25 (6.2%) | 36 (9.0%) | 0.027 |
| GN starting dose, IU | 225 [0, 300] | 225 [0, 300] | − 0.076 | 225 [0, 300] | 225 [0, 300] | − 0.088 |
| Oocyte yield | 0.045 | − 0.018 | ||||
| 1 | 980 (45.4%) | 169 (40.9%) | 161 (40.1%) | 168 (41.9%) | ||
| 2 | 1179 (54.6%) | 244 (59.1%) | 240 (59.9%) | 233 (58.1%) | ||
| Extended culture (%) | 118 (5.5%) | 32 (7.7%) | 0.023 | 26 (6.5%) | 31 (7.7%) | 0.013 |
Data were presented as median [first quartile, third quartile] and mean (SD) for continuous variables and n (percentage) for categorical variables
OPU oocyte pickup; PCOs polycystic ovarian syndrome; BMI body mass index; FSH follicle-stimulating hormone, LH luteinizing hormone, GnRH gonadotropin, GN gonadotropin
*D: standardized difference. The absolute value of D is less than 0.1, cohorts can be considered to be balanced with respect to the demographics being assessed
Table 2 shows the outcomes of the IVF group and ICSI group before and after PS matching. After matching, the TFF rate in the IVF group was significantly lower than that in the ICSI group (P < 0.05). On the other hand, the fertilization rate and MPN rate in the IVF group were significantly higher than those in the ICSI group (P < 0.05) in both the matched and unmatched cohorts (Table S1). There was no statistical difference in embryo availability between the IVF and ICSI groups in either matched or unmatched cohorts, as cleavage 2PN embryo rate, available embryo number, and high-quality embryo rate were comparable between cohorts. Concerning the cumulative outcomes taking freeze-all cycles into account, the cumulative pregnancy rate in the IVF group was significantly higher than in the ICSI group (P < 0.05), although there was no significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) between the two groups (P > 0.05) in the matched cohort.
Table 2.
Clinical outcomes before and after PS matching for OPU cycles
| Variables | Before matching | P value | After matching | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVF | ICSI | IVF | ICSI | |||
| (N = 2159) | (N = 413) | (N = 401) | (N = 401) | |||
| Canceled ET cycles (%) | 744 (34.5%) | 165 (40.0%) | 0.037 | 142 (35.4%) | 157 (39.2%) | 0.307 |
| Cycles got no embryo (%) | 577 (26.7%) | 117 (28.3%) | 0.540 | 101 (25.2%) | 114 (28.4%) | 0.339 |
| Freeze-all cycle (%) | 167 (7.7%) | 48 (11.6%) | 0.012 | 41 (10.2%) | 43 (10.7%) | 0.908 |
| TFF cycle (%) | 187 (8.7%) | 58 (14.0%) | < 0.001 | 31 (7.7%) | 56 (14.0%) | 0.006 |
| Normal fertilization rate, (%) | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 64.2 (41.6) | 67.7 (40.8) | 0.114 | 65.7 (40.5) | 67.6 (40.9) | 0.426 |
| Median [Min, Max] | 100 [0, 100] | 100 [0, 100] | 100 [0, 100] | 100 [0, 100] | ||
| Cleavage 2PN embryo rate, (%) | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 73.9 (43.6) | 77.1 (41.8) | 0.158 | 76.2 (42.3) | 76.9 (42.0) | 0.769 |
| Median [Min, Max] | 100 [0, 100] | 100 [0, 100] | 100 [0, 100] | 100 [0, 100] | ||
| Available embryo number | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 0.722 (0.737) | 0.826 (0.766) | 0.012 | 0.800 (0.768) | 0.813 (0.760) | 0.787 |
| Median [Min, Max] | 1.00 [0, 2.00] | 1.00 [0, 2.00] | 1.00 [0, 2.00] | 1.00 [0, 2.00] | ||
| High-quality embryo rate, % | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | 37.2 (46.4) | 38.4 (45.9) | 0.537 | 40.4 (46.9) | 38.4 (46.1) | 0.575 |
| Median [Min, Max] | 0 [0, 100] | 0 [0, 100] | 0 [0, 100] | 0 [0, 100] | ||
| Clinical pregnancy per fresh ET (%) | 490 (34.6%) | 81 (32.7%) | 0.596 | 99 (38.2%) | 79 (32.4%) | 0.202 |
| Live birth per fresh ET (%) | 389 (27.5%) | 65 (26.2%) | 0.733 | 74 (28.6%) | 63 (25.8%) | 0.553 |
| Cumulative pregnancy (%) | 563 (26.1%) | 90 (21.8%) | 0.077 | 115 (28.7%) | 87 (21.7%) | 0.028 |
| Cumulative live birth (%) | 444 (20.6%) | 72 (17.4%) | 0.165 | 85 (21.2%) | 69 (17.2%) | 0.179 |
Data were presented as mean (SD) and median [Min, Max] for continuous variables and n (percentage) for categorical variables
TFF total fertilization failure, PN pronuclei
Given ICSI’s invasive nature, we examined whether its higher TFF rate resulted from increased oocyte degeneration (Supplementary Table S1). The number of oocytes degenerated was recorded after denudation (D0) and during pronuclei checking (D1) for both ICSI and IVF. However, neither the number of oocytes degenerated nor the proportion of cycles with all oocytes degenerated significantly differed between the two groups.
Table 3 shows the results of multivariate analyses for TFF, cumulative pregnancy, and CLBR with adjustment of the aforementioned covariates. The details of the models are also shown in Supplementary Table S2–4. It is shown that ICSI insemination was significantly associated with about 60% higher odds of TFF, before matching (OR:1.62, 95% CI: 1. 12–2. 33) and after matching (OR: 1. 65; 95% CI: 1.12–2.43). The odds of clinical pregnancy per complete cycle were also 35% lower in the ICSI group compared to the IVF group (adjusted OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46–0.91). However, the association between insemination protocols and CLBR remained insignificant.
Table 3.
Association between insemination protocols and outcomes in patients with one or two oocytes
| Characteristic | Before matching | P value | After matching | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR1 | 95% CI1 | OR1 | 95% CI1 | |||
| Total fertilization failure | ||||||
| IVF | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||
| ICSI | 1.62 | 1.12, 2.33 | 0.009 | 1.65 | 1.12, 2.43 | 0.011 |
| Cumulative pregnancy | ||||||
| IVF | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||
| ICSI | 0.77 | 0.58, 1.02 | 0.071 | 0.65 | 0.46, 0.91 | 0.013 |
| Cumulative live birth | ||||||
| IVF | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||
| ICSI | 0.82 | 0.60, 1.11 | 0.200 | 0.76 | 0.55, 1.04 | 0.094 |
Models were adjusted for female age, female BMI, female basal FSH, LH, AFC, previous maternal history, PCOS, endometriosis, OPU order, male BMI, male age, sperm normal morphology rate, total motile sperm number, stimulation protocol, oocyte yield, and extended culture
1 OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
To detail the potential effect of other indicators for decision-making of insemination protocols, namely the TMC and maternal age, on the outcomes of interest, we compared the splines where TMC and maternal age were fitted to TFF or CLBR using GAM (Supplementary Figure S2, S3) in the matched cohort. It shows that with the range of TMC evaluated in the study, ICSI appeared to lead to a higher TFF. On the other hand, however, the TFF in IVF patients may increase with increasing maternal age, where ICSI patients are less likely to be affected. IVF patients also appeared to have a higher adjusted CLBR, when TMC < 200 million or maternal age between 30 and 40, according to the confidence interval of the splines.
To further compare our study with previous evidence, we used the “meta” package to pool the available data on this topic [5, 16, 25–30]. For both fertilization rates per oocyte and pregnancy per initiated cycle, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed, regardless of whether our data were included or not. However, the pooled effect of the previous study may slightly favor ICSI, if our data were not included (Supplementary Figure S4).
Discussion
In this study, we focused on infertile couples with extremely poor response and non-severe male factors. The results confirmed that canceled ET cycle rates, the rates of cycles with no embryo, embryo quality, and CLBR were similar between IVF and ICSI, indicating that the insemination method did not affect embryo development ability and pregnancy rate. However, ICSI also led to an increased TFF, suggesting against using ICSI to secure the fertilization of these patients.
According to the Vienna Consensus, the TFF of IVF and ICSI cycles should be less than 5% [31]. However, poor responders may suffer from a much higher incidence of TFF than the general population [32]. Krog et al. reported that when less than four oocytes were retrieved, the TFF rate increased by three times compared with the normal responders [33]. A possible reason that drives the increasing use of ICSI is the virtual elimination of cases further complicated by TFF, even though the cumulative evidence did not support the use of the procedure in non-male factor infertile patients [34]. ICSI grants the consistent ability of a viable spermatozoon to activate an oocyte. However, when the problem is oocyte origin, even ICSI may fail [35]. Our previous study also showed that patients with less than four oocytes had an unexpected TFF rate of 21% in their first treatment and semen parameters were not reliable predictors for TFF for these patients [10]. It might suggest that for poor responders, the problems associated with oocytes are the major detriments to hamper fertilization.
One of the most common reasons for TFF is the nucleus–cytoplasmic maturation asynchrony [35]. Cytoplasmic maturation includes a series of events that are key to oocyte competence, such as the rearrangement of organelles and the accumulation of mRNA, proteins, substrates, and nutrients [36]. The calcium store content in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), which is essential for the fertilization event, also increases markedly during maturation, along with the rearrangement of ER [37]. Immature cytoplasm may lead to a failed calcium oscillation following fertilization. In this case, even if a single sperm was injected, no sign of fertilization would be observed. For poor responders, the nucleus–cytoplasmic maturation asynchrony might be more frequent due to the possible alternated follicle growth dynamic, abnormal endocrine response, or other stress and anxiety [38]. The function of cumulus cells surrounding the oocyte which promotes cytoplasm/nucleus maturation through an autocrine/paracrine mechanism may also be impaired in poor responders [39–41].
Compared with conventional IVF, ICSI requires an earlier denudation, leading to a shorter in vitro incubation of the cumulus–oocyte complex. Several studies have shown that the interval between oocyte retrieval and denudation may affect the outcomes of ICSI [42, 43] and some authors suggested that a longer interval might be associated with a better outcome [40, 44]. A longer interval may allow the oocytes to reach full maturity with the somatic cell compartment [45, 46]. For oocytes with a potential nucleus–cytoplasmic maturation asynchrony problem, such extended culture before insemination might rescue the immaturity. A possible interpretation for the lower TFF in conventional IVF in our cohort may be that a longer denudation interval may partially reserve the synchronized nucleus–cytoplasmic maturation. On the other hand, however, immature or over-mature cytoplasm might also lead to polyspermy when conventional IVF is used [47, 48].
With conventional IVF, a higher multiple pronuclei (MPN) rate was observed in the cohort. It is generally accepted that MPN formation is due to the abnormal extrusion of the second polar body or to abnormal fertilization with multiple sperm [49]. With the sign of the extrusion of the second polar body, polyspermy is suspected. Polyspermy could be due to the aging of oocytes or a high number of capitated sperm at the fertilization site [47]. Practically, these two factors may be additive. Standard sperm concentrations work well for competent oocytes, but may cause polyspermy in those with impaired cortical granule function. Reducing the sperm concentration at the fertilization site with methods such as droplet insemination may be a possible alternative to avoid polyspermy [50].
Although there have been several previous studies concerning the use of ICSI in patients with low oocyte yield (1, 2) and non-severe male infertility[5, 15, 16, 25, 27–30], considerable heterogeneity was found when comparing these data (Supplementary FigureS4). While the majority of the studies [15, 16, 25, 27, 30] suggested a fertilization rate favored ICSI, the work of Wu et al. and Sfontouris et al. suggested similar fertilization rates between IVF and ICSI in patients with non-severe male infertility [28, 29]. The source of heterogeneity may be from the patients’ characteristics or practices of laboratories. Considering the relatively small sample size of these studies [5, 29], the confounders may lead to considerable fluctuation of outcomes. As our data have shown, the differences in TFF became diminished when the age of patients increased (Supplementary Figure S2, S3). On the other hand, however, since the studies were retrospective, inclusion bias may also be considerable. Imbalances in oocyte maturity rates between IVF and ICSI groups were found in several studies [25, 28, 29]. The proportion of MII was usually higher in ICSI patients. For instance, Wang et al. showed a significantly higher MII rate in the ICSI group than in the IVF group in patients with one oocyte and also a higher cumulative live birth rate per cycle [25]. Since ICSI could only be given to mature oocytes following denudation, it is less clear whether cycles with immature or degenerated oocytes were excluded in these studies. Considering the clinical scenarios, the intention-to-treat inclusion rather than per-protocol inclusion may be more meaningful to the decision-making for patients with very low oocyte yield. The heterogeneity calls for higher-quality evidence on this issue. Our data contribute to the issue by giving evidence in indication-matched, intention-to-treat patients.
Similar to fertilization, the reports concerning the effect of ICSI on pregnancy following an initiated cycle in patients with extremely low responses are heterogeneous [5, 16, 25–30]. Wang et al. [25] suggested a cumulative pregnancy rate favoring the ICSI group, which conflicts with our study and Xi et al. [30]. While low oocyte yield leads to a very limited chance of transfer, earlier studies only reported pregnancies following fresh transfer [5, 16, 26–29]. With the increasing use of FET and ovarian stimulation protocols such as the luteal phase stimulation, more recent studies reported cumulative pregnancy or live birth following a complete cycle. Considering the cumulative chance of pregnancy, the latest evidence in normal responders with non-severy infertility has implied that outcomes following complete cycles would be hampered by the ICSI procedure [51]. A similar effect would be expected in patients with very low oocyte yield, although the small sample size, low number of events, and high uncertainty are also expected in these patients.
Current evidence-based guidelines explicitly discourage the routine use of ICSI in cases of unexplained infertility, diminished ovarian response, or advanced maternal age, given the absence of demonstrable clinical benefits over conventional IVF [52]. However, the lack of significant outcome disparities may also be interpreted as non-inferiority. The justification for ICSI utilization may shift from medical necessity to pragmatic considerations, including operator-dependent technical preferences or patient anxiety regarding TFF. Patients or clinicians may weigh the fear of TFF over cost-effectiveness and use ICSI as a safeguard technically and psychologically. However, the trade-off should be reevaluated if the attempt of ICSI leads to risks such as increased TFF and decreased cumulative pregnancy rates. On the other hand, the concerns of TFF in poor responders might be addressed by other less invasive add-ons or technologies. For instance, recent advances in microfluidic sperm sorting may increase the sperm capacity for fertilization, improving fertilization, embryo morphology, and implantation [53, 54]. This novel technology may provide a viable option for patients who are worried about TFF. Future studies may examine whether the technology benefits patients with low oocyte yield.
Strength and limitations
In comparison with previous studies, the strength of the study may include a larger sample size, adjustment for a set of covariates using PS matching, and the reporting of the cumulative outcomes per complete cycle. However, the study is also limited by the retrospective design. In addition, due to the low reproductive potential of poor responders, the current sample size may lack sufficient power to detect the difference in CLBR between the groups, while the confidence interval may suggest a trend favoring IVF. Considering that the latest level 1 evidence suggested that ICSI may slightly decrease the CLBR in patients with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.89 [51], a similar difference would be expected in poor responders with a larger sample size.
Conclusion
Our data show that for poor responders with only one or two oocytes retrieved, ICSI cannot avoid TFF. Alternatively, it reduces fertilization and cumulative pregnancy rates. It is suggested that ICSI is not recommended for poor responders, as it does not prevent TFF and may reduce cumulative pregnancy rates. Furthermore, the technical complexity, the cost, the potential damage to oocytes, and possible long-term health issues are also potential concerns of this invasive technique [14, 34, 51].
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 Figure S1. Distribution of propensity scores (distance) before and after matching (JPG 63 KB)
Supplementary file2 Figure S2. Change of cycle outcomes across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. (A) Crude TFF across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. (B) Adjusted TFF across TMC levels in different insemination protocols; (C) Crude cumulative live birth across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. (D) Adjusted cumulative live births across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. Models were adjusted for female age, female BMI, female basal FSH, LH, AFC, previous maternal history, PCOS, endometriosis, OPU order, male BMI, male age, sperm normal morphology rate, total motile sperm number, stimulation protocol, oocyte yield and extended culture in GAM models (TIFF 21793 KB)
Supplementary file3 Figure S3. Change of cycle outcomes across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. (A) Crude TFF across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. (B) Adjusted TFF across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols; (C) Crude cumulative live birth across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. (D) Adjusted cumulative live births across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. Models were adjusted for female age, female BMI, female basal FSH, LH, AFC, previous maternal history, PCOS, endometriosis, OPU order, male BMI, male age, sperm normal morphology rate, total motile sperm number, stimulation protocol, oocyte yield and extended culture in GAM models (TIFF 21793 KB)
Supplementary file4 Figure S4. Pooled analysis of existing evidence of the effect of ICSI on patients with 1–2 oocytes. (A) Pooled analysis of the evidence before our study concerning the fertilization rate in patients with 1-2 oocytes; (B) Pooled analysis of the evidence including our study concerning the fertilization rate in patients with 1-2 oocytes; (C) Pooled analysis of the evidence before our study concerning the pregnancy per cycle in patients with 1-2 oocytes; (D) Pooled analysis of the evidence including our study concerning the pregnancy per cycle in patients with 1-2 oocytes (JPG 319 KB)
Acknowledgements
We thank Xinli Wang for her assistance in the data processing. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 22176159]; the Xiamen Medical Advantage subspecialty construction project [grant number 2018296] and the Wu Jieping Medical Foundation [grant number 320.6750.2024-6-14].
Author contributions
Jinghua Chen, Jiali Cai, and Jianzhi Ren contributed to conception and design. Zhengfang Liu, Jinghua Chen, Kaijie Chen, Xiaolian Yang, and Liying Zhou contributed to the acquisition of data. Jinghua Chen, Lanlan Liu, Jiali Cai, Yurong Chen, and Xiaolian Yang contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. All authors contributed to drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Xiamen Medical Advantage subspecialty construction project,2018296,2018296,Wu Jieping Medical Foundation,320.6750.2024-6-14,National Natural Science Foundation of China,22176159
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Jianzhi Ren, Email: rjz174@126.com.
Jiali Cai, Email: jialicai@xmu.edu.cn.
References
- 1.Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC (1992) Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 340:17–18 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kupka MS, Chambers GM, Dyer S, Zegers-Hochschild F, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O et al (2024) International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technology world report: assisted reproductive technology, 2015 and 2016. Fertil Steril 122:875–893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Jewett A, Warner L, Kawwass JF, Mehta A, Eisenberg ML, Nangia AK et al (2022) Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the national assisted reproductive technology surveillance system. F S Rep 3:124–130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Luna M, Bigelow C, Duke M, Ruman J, Sandler B, Grunfeld L et al (2011) Should ICSI be recommended routinely in patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved? J Assist Reprod Genet 28:911–915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gozlan I, Dor A, Farber B, Meirow D, Feinstein S, Levron J (2007) Comparing intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in patients with single oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril 87:515–518 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Smeenk J, Wyns C, De Geyter C, Kupka M, Bergh C et al (2023) European IVF Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), ART in Europe 2019: results generated from European registries by ESHRE†. Hum Reprod 38:2321–38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Dang VQ, Vuong LN, Luu TM, Pham TD, Ho TM, Ha AN et al (2021) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation in couples with infertility in whom the male partner has normal total sperm count and motility: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 397:1554–1563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Li Z, Wang AY, Bowman M, Hammarberg K, Farquhar C, Johnson L et al (2018) ICSI does not increase the cumulative live birth rate in non-male factor infertility. Hum Reprod 33:1322–1330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Abbas AM, Hussein RS, Elsenity MA, Samaha II, El Etriby KA, Abd El-Ghany MF et al (2020) Higher clinical pregnancy rate with in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in treatment of non-male factor infertility: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 49:101706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jiang X, Cai J, Liu L, Liu Z, Chen J, Yang C et al (2023) Predicting the unexpected total fertilization failure in conventional in vitro fertilization cycles: what is the role of semen quality? Front Cell Dev Biol 11:1133512 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.van der Westerlaken L, Helmerhorst F, Dieben S, Naaktgeboren N (2005) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a treatment for unexplained total fertilization failure or low fertilization after conventional in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 83:612–617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Johnson LNC, Sasson IE, Sammel MD, Dokras A (2013) Does intracytoplasmic sperm injection improve the fertilization rate and decrease the total fertilization failure rate in couples with well-defined unexplained infertility? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 100:704–711 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Mostafaei P, Ghaffari F, Zolfaghari Z, Vesali S (2022) Unexplained total fertilization failure after intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a case-control study on predictive factors and retreatment prognosis. Int J Fertil Steril 16:42–48 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Rosen MP, Shen S, Dobson AT, Fujimoto VY, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI (2006) Oocyte degeneration after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multivariate analysis to assess its importance as a laboratory or clinical marker. Fertil Steril 85:1736–1743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fang C, Tang J, Huang R, Li LL, Zhang MF, Liang XY (2012) Comparison of IVF outcomes using conventional insemination and ICSI in ovarian cycles in which only one or two oocytes are obtained. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 41:650–656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ou Y-C, Lan K-C, Huang F-J, Kung F-T, Lan T-H, Chang SY (2010) Comparison of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in extremely low oocyte retrieval cycles. Fertil Steril 93:96–100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sunderam S, Boulet SL, Kawwass JF, Kissin DM (2020) Comparing fertilization rates from intracytoplasmic sperm injection to conventional in vitro fertilization among women of advanced age with non-male factor infertility: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 113:354-363.e1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Fancsovits P, Lehner A, Kaszas Z, Nemes A, Dudas B, Joo K et al (2023) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection does not improve the outcome of IVF treatments in patients with advanced maternal age or low oocyte number: a randomized controlled trial. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 52:102625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ford WCL (2010) Comments on the release of the 5th edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Asian J Androl 12:59–63 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Repping S, van Weert J-M, Mol BWJ, de Vries JWA, van der Veen F (2002) Use of the total motile sperm count to predict total fertilization failure in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 78:22–28 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.ALPHA (2011) Scientists in reproductive medicine, ESHRE special interest group embryology. Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 22:632–46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB (2000) Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 73:1155–1158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S (2015) Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod 30:2703–2707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.R: The R Project for Statistical Computing [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/. 30th July 2024.
- 25.Wang S, Zhang X, Bao H, Cui Y (2022) Analysis of clinical outcomes of different fertilization methods in patients with ≤3 eggs retrieved. J Healthc Eng 2022:9467568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Fang C, Tang J, Huang R, Li LL, Zhang MF, Liang XY (2012) Comparison of IVF outcomes using conventional insemination and ICSI in ovarian cycles in which only one or two oocytes are obtained. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 41:650–656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Guo N, Hua X, Li Y-F, Jin L (2018) Role of ICSI in non-male factor cycles as the number of oocytes retrieved decreases from four to one. Curr Med Sci 38:131–136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sfontouris IA, Kolibianakis EM, Lainas GT, Navaratnarajah R, Tarlatzis BC, Lainas TG (2015) Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved. J Assist Reprod Genet 32:691–697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wu C-Y, Huang T-J, Hwu Y-M, Kuo-Kuang Lee R, Lin M-H (2023) Comparison of clinical outcomes between conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in poor responders with only single oocyte retrieved. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 62:55–58 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Xi Q, Zhu L, Hu J, Wu L, Zhang H (2012) Should few retrieved oocytes be as an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection? J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 13:717–722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology (2017) Alpha scientists in reproductive medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Hum Reprod Open 2017:hox011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tian T, Chen L, Yang R, Long X, Li Q, Hao Y, et al. (2022) Prediction of fertilization disorders in the in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a retrospective study of 106,728 treatment cycles. Front Endocrinol 13:870708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Krog M, Prior M, Carlsen E, Loft A, Forman J, Pinborg A et al (2015) Fertilization failure after IVF in 304 couples–a case-control study on predictors and long-term prognosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 184:32–37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bosch E, Espinós JJ, Fabregues F, Fontes J, García-Velasco J, Llácer J et al (2020) Always ICSI? A SWOT analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 37:2081–2092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Neri QV, Lee B, Rosenwaks Z, Machaca K, Palermo GD (2014) Understanding fertilization through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Cell Calcium 55:24–37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Watson AJ (2007) Oocyte cytoplasmic maturation: a key mediator of oocyte and embryo developmental competence. J Anim Sci 85:E1-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Wakai T, Mehregan A, Fissore RA (2019) Ca2+ Signaling and homeostasis in mammalian oocytes and eggs. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 11:a035162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Gonda KJ, Domar AD, Gleicher N, Marrs RP (2018) Insights from clinical experience in treating IVF poor responders. Reprod Biomed Online 36:12–19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Johnson JE, Higdon HL, Boone WR (2008) Effect of human granulosa cell co-culture using standard culture media on the maturation and fertilization potential of immature human oocytes. Fertil Steril 90:1674–1679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lu X, Lv X, Dong X, Li Y, Turathum B, Liu S et al (2023) Increased serine synthesis in cumulus cells of young infertile women with diminished ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 38:1723–1732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Del Bianco D, Gentile R, Sallicandro L, Biagini A, Quellari PT, Gliozheni E et al (2024) Electro-metabolic coupling of cumulus-oocyte complex. Int J Mol Sci 25:5349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Patrat C, Kaffel A, Delaroche L, Guibert J, Jouannet P, Epelboin S et al (2012) Optimal timing for oocyte denudation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Obstet Gynecol Int 2012:403531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Carvalho M, Leal F, Mota S, Aguiar A, Sousa S, Nunes J et al (2020) The effect of denudation and injection timing in the reproductive outcomes of ICSI cycles: new insights into the risk of in vitro oocyte ageing. Hum Reprod 35:2226–2236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Isiklar A, Mercan R, Balaban B, Alatas C, Aksoy S, Urman B (2004) Impact of oocyte pre-incubation time on fertilization, embryo quality and pregnancy rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Reprod Biomed Online 8:682–686 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Ho JY-P, Chen M-J, Yi Y-C, Guu H-F, Ho ES-C (2003) The effect of preincubation period of oocytes on nuclear maturity, fertilization rate, embryo quality, and pregnancy outcome in IVF and ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet 20:358–64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Anniballo R, Cerulo G, Greco E (1998) Preincubation of human oocytes may improve fertilization and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 13:1014–1019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Wang W-H, Day BN, Wu G-M (2003) How does polyspermy happen in mammalian oocytes? Microsc Res Tech 61:335–341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.van der Ven HH, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K, Hamerich U, Lehmann F, Krebs D (1985) Polyspermy in in vitro fertilization of human oocytes: frequency and possible causes. Ann N Y Acad Sci 442:88–95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Kemper JM, Liu Y, Afnan M, Mol BWJ, Morbeck DE (2023) What happens to abnormally fertilized embryos? Scop Rev Reprod Biomed Online 46:802–807 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Hasegawa A, Mochida K, Tomishima T, Inoue K, Ogura A (2014) Microdroplet in vitro fertilization can reduce the number of spermatozoa necessary for fertilizing oocytes. J Reprod Dev 60(3):187–93 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Wang Y, Li R, Yang R, Zheng D, Zeng L, Lian Y et al (2024) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation for couples with infertility with non-severe male factor: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet S0140–6736(23):02416–02419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2020) Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 114:239–45 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Sheibak N, Amjadi F, Shamloo A, Zarei F, Zandieh Z (2024) Microfluidic sperm sorting selects a subpopulation of high-quality sperm with a higher potential for fertilization. Hum Reprod 39:902–911 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Mirsanei JS, Sheibak N, Zandieh Z, Mehdizadeh M, Aflatoonian R, Tabatabaei M et al (2022) Microfluidic chips as a method for sperm selection improve fertilization rate in couples with fertilization failure. Arch Gynecol Obstet 306:901–910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary file1 Figure S1. Distribution of propensity scores (distance) before and after matching (JPG 63 KB)
Supplementary file2 Figure S2. Change of cycle outcomes across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. (A) Crude TFF across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. (B) Adjusted TFF across TMC levels in different insemination protocols; (C) Crude cumulative live birth across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. (D) Adjusted cumulative live births across TMC levels in different insemination protocols. Models were adjusted for female age, female BMI, female basal FSH, LH, AFC, previous maternal history, PCOS, endometriosis, OPU order, male BMI, male age, sperm normal morphology rate, total motile sperm number, stimulation protocol, oocyte yield and extended culture in GAM models (TIFF 21793 KB)
Supplementary file3 Figure S3. Change of cycle outcomes across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. (A) Crude TFF across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. (B) Adjusted TFF across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols; (C) Crude cumulative live birth across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. (D) Adjusted cumulative live births across MATERNAL AGE levels in different insemination protocols. Models were adjusted for female age, female BMI, female basal FSH, LH, AFC, previous maternal history, PCOS, endometriosis, OPU order, male BMI, male age, sperm normal morphology rate, total motile sperm number, stimulation protocol, oocyte yield and extended culture in GAM models (TIFF 21793 KB)
Supplementary file4 Figure S4. Pooled analysis of existing evidence of the effect of ICSI on patients with 1–2 oocytes. (A) Pooled analysis of the evidence before our study concerning the fertilization rate in patients with 1-2 oocytes; (B) Pooled analysis of the evidence including our study concerning the fertilization rate in patients with 1-2 oocytes; (C) Pooled analysis of the evidence before our study concerning the pregnancy per cycle in patients with 1-2 oocytes; (D) Pooled analysis of the evidence including our study concerning the pregnancy per cycle in patients with 1-2 oocytes (JPG 319 KB)
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.