Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): which is preferred for advanced age patients with five or fewer oocytes retrieved?

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the clinical outcomes of conventional IVF and ICSI in female patients aged 40 years and over with no more than five oocytes retrieved and non-male factor infertility.

Methods

A retrospective study of a cohort of 644 patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The 534 female patients aged ≧ 40 years with no more than five oocytes retrieved and non-male factor infertility undergoing their first conventional IVF cycles were assigned in IVF group. The rest of 110 patients aged 40 years and over with no more than five oocytes retrieved and non-male factor infertility undergoing first ICSI cycles were recruited in ICSI group.

Results

Our results showed the clinical pregnancy, live birth and miscarriage rates were similar between the IVF and ICSI groups (21.59% vs. 13.25%, P > 0.05; 12.16% vs. 6.02%, P > 0.05; 43.68% vs. 54.55%, P > 0.05; respectively), however, the implantation and cumulative live-birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF compared to the ICSI group (15.11% vs. 7.75%, 14.59% vs. 5.56%, P < 0.05), though the IVF group had a lower normal fertilization rate (61.56% vs. 76.00%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our study provides strong evidences that the conventional IVF exhibits advantages over the ICSI method in non-male factor infertility for advanced age patients with five or fewer oocytes retrieved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Craig BM, Donovan KA, Fraenkel L, Watson V, Hawley S, Quinn GP (2014) A generation of childless women: lessons from the United States. Womens Health Issues 24(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ron-El R, Raziel A, Strassburger D, Schachter M, Kasterstein E, Friedler S (2000) Out-come of assisted reproductive technology in women over the age of 41. Fertil Steril 74:471–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ciray HN, Ulug U, Tosun S, Erden HF, Bahceci M (2006) Outcome of 1114 ICSI andembryo transfer cycles of women 40 years of age and over. Reprod Biomed Online 13:516–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Toner J (2003) Age = egg quality, FSH level = egg quantity. Fertil Steril 79:491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Terriou P, Giorgetti C, Auquier P et al (1996) Value of an embryo score to predictimplantation. Contracept Fertil Sex 24:657–660

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Samuel FM, Peter RB (1996) In-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in women aged 40 years and over. Hum Reprod Update 2(6):459–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hipp H, Crawford S, Kawwass JF, Boulet SL, Grainger DA, Kissin DM, Jamieson D (2017) National trends and outcomes of autologous in vitro fertilization cycles among women ages 40 years and older. J Assist Reprod Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0926-2

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pellestor F, Andreo B, Arnal F, Humeau C, Demaille J (2003) Maternal aging and chromosomal abnormalities: new data drawn from in vitro unfertilized human oocytes. Hum Genet 112:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-002-0852-x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilbert WM, Nesbitt TS, Danielsen B (1999) Childbearing beyond age 40: pregnancy outcome in 24,032 cases. Obstet Gynecol 93(1):9–14

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I (2004) Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 104:727–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, Warner L, Kawwass JF, Jamieson DJ (2015) Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA 313:255–263. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, Banker M, Adamson GD (2016) International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted reproductive technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Hum Reprod 31:1588–1609. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Puissant F, Van RM, Barlow P (1987) Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2:705–708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gardner DK, Lane M (1997) Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update 3:367–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Foong SG, Fleetham JA, Okeane JA, Scott SG, Tough SC, Greene CA (2006) A prospective randomized trial of conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in unexplained fertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 23(3):137–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-005-9008-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim HH, Bundorf MK, Behr B, McCallum SW (2007) Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril 88(3):622–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ou YC, Lan KC, Huang FJ et al (2010) Comparison of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in extremely low oocyte retrieval cycles. Fertil Steril 93(1):96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 (Pairs) 41(7):650–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.06.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Samer T, Weon YS, Ashley G, Grace Y, Tal S, Michael HD (2017) The role of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in non-male factor infertility in advanced maternal age. Hum Reprod 32(1):119–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew298

    Google Scholar 

  20. David FA (2015) To ICSI or not to ICSI? That was the question. J Assist Reprod Genet 32:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0416-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dumoulin JM, Coonen E, Bras M, Bergers-Janssen JM, Ignoul-Vanvuchelen RC, Van Wissen LC, Geraedts JP, Evers JL (2001) Embryo development and chromosomal anomalies after ICSI: effect of the injection procedure. Hum Reprod 16:306–312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Woldringh GH, Kremer JA, Braat DD, Meuleman EJ (2005) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a review of risks and complications. BJU Int 96:749–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05708.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simen C, Pellicer A, Remohi J (1998) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients. Hum Reprod 13:2126–2129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller JE, Smith TT (2001) The effect of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and semen parameters on blastocyst development in vitro. Hum Reprod 16:918–924

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Philippe V, Martine P, Caroline BL, Jean S, Hilaire B (2006) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection–an assisted reproduction technique that should make us cautious about imprinting deregulation. Reprod Sci 13(5):317–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsgi.2006.04.002

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Merck Serono China Research Fund for Fertility, National Research on Development Plan (2016YFC1000604) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81601256 and No. 81401266).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hui Liu and Haibin Zhao have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, No. 157 Jingliu Road, Jinan, 250001, People’s Republic of China

    Hui Liu, Haibin Zhao, Guanling Yu, Mei Li, Shuiying Ma, Haozhen Zhang & Keliang Wu

  2. The Key laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology (Shandong University), Ministry of Education, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, No. 157 Jingliu Road, Jinan, 250001, People’s Republic of China

    Hui Liu, Haibin Zhao, Guanling Yu, Mei Li, Shuiying Ma, Haozhen Zhang & Keliang Wu

Authors
  1. Hui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haibin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guanling Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuiying Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Haozhen Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Keliang Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LH: data management/analysis, manuscript writing/editing, ZHB: data management/analysis, manuscript writing/editing, YGL: data collection, LM: manuscript editing, MSY: manuscript editing, ZHZ: data collection, WKL: study design, manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keliang Wu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Reproductive Medicine, Shandong University Research Ethics Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 58 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, H., Zhao, H., Yu, G. et al. Conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): which is preferred for advanced age patients with five or fewer oocytes retrieved?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297, 1301–1306 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4696-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4696-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation