Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of chromosomal abnormality rates in ICSI for non-male factor and spontaneous conception

  • ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare cytogenetic data of first-trimester missed abortions in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor-mediated and spontaneous pregnancies.

Methods

Using karyotype analysis, we conducted a retrospective cohort trial of missed abortions following ICSI for non-male factor and spontaneous pregnancies. Patients experienced missed abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Dilation and curettage procedure was performed followed by cytogenetic evaluations. Two patient groups were created: ICSI (n = 71) and spontaneous pregnancies (n = 81). At least 20 GTG-banded metaphases were analyzed in each case for cytogenetic analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using NCSS 2007 Statistical Program software. The significance level and confidence interval for all analyses were set to p < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval, respectively.

Results

A total of 49.3% (75/152) of the miscarriages were cytogenetically abnormal among the patients. We detected cytogenetically abnormalities in 47.9% (34/71) of the ICSI group and 50.6% (41/81) of the control group, which were not statistically significant differences (p=NS). The sex chromosome abnormalities were similar between the ICSI and control groups (p=NS). The most prevalent abnormalities that were observed in the ICSI and control groups with first-trimester pregnancy loss were trisomy (n = 42; 27.6%), Turner syndrome (45, X0, n = 13; 8.6%), triploidy (n = 13; 8.6%), 48 chromosomes (n = 5; 3.3%), and mixed chromosomal abnormalities (n = 3; 1.2%). In addition, the karyotypes were similar between the ICSI and control groups (p=NS). We observed increases in fetal aneuploidy rates with increased maternal age (<30 years = 23.9% vs. 31–34 years = 37.0% vs. 35–39 years = 82.9% vs. >39 years = 90.9%). However, the observed increases in fetal aneuploidy rates were not statistically significant (p=NS).

Conclusion

The aneuploidy rates and sex chromosome anomalies following ICSI for non-male factor were similar to those following natural conception.

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. Simpson JL. Causes of fetal wastage. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50:10–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang JX, Norman RJ, Wilcox AJ. Incidence of spontaneous abortion among pregnancies produced by assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:272–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schieve LA, Tatham L, Peterson HB, Toner J, Jeng G. Spontaneous abortion among pregnancies conceived using assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:959–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Farr SL, Schieve LA, Jamieson DJ. Pregnancy loss among pregnancies conceived through assisted reproductive technology, United States, 1999–2002. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:1380–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Simpson JL, Bombard AT. Chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous abortion: frequency, pathology and genetic counseling. In: Edmonds KBMJ, editor. Spontaneous abortion. London: Blackwell; 1987. p. 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Angell RR. Aneuploidy in older women. Higher rates of aneuploidy in oocytes from older women. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:1199–2000.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2005;54:1–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1680–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baird DT, Collins J, Egozcue J, et al. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:261–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Woldringh GH, Besselink DE, Tillema AH, Hendriks JC, Kremer JA. Karyotyping, congenital anomalies and follow-up of children after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with non-ejaculated sperm: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:12–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Squires J, Kaplan P. Developmental outcomes of children born after assisted reproductive technologies. Infants Young Children. 2007;20(1):2–10. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wright V, Chang J, Jeng G, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2003. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2006;55(SS04):1–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilton L. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in early human embryos: a review. Prenat Diagn. 2002;22:512–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kushnir VA, Frattarelli JL. Aneuploidy in abortuses following IVF and ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:93–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonduelle M, Van Assche E, Joris H, Keymolen K, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Prenatal testing in ICSI pregnancies: incidence of chromosomal anomalies in 1586 karyotypes and relation to sperm parameters. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2600–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Munne S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:382–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Patrizio P. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): potential genetic concerns. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2520–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Kretser DM. The potential of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) to transmit genetic defects causing male infertility. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1995;7:137–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seamark RF, Robinson JK. Potential health problems stemming from assisted reproduction programmes. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1321–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Simoni G, Brambati B, Danesino C, Rossella F, Terzoli GL, Ferrari M, et al. Efficient direct chromosome analyses and enzyme determinations from chorionic villi samples in the first trimester of pregnancy. Hum Genet. 1983;63:349–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim JW, Lee WS, Yoon TK, Seok HH, Cho JH, Kim YS, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous abortion after assisted reproductive treatment. BMC Med Genet. 2010;11:153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bonduelle M, Camus M, De Vos A, Staessen C, Tournaye H, Van Assche E, et al. Seven years of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and follow-up of 1987 subsequent children. Hum Reprod. 1999;14 Suppl 1:243–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Herve C, Moutel G. Sex chromosome abnormalities after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet. 1995;346:1096–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Meschede D, Horst J. Sex chromosomal anomalies in pregnancies conceived through intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a case for genetic counselling. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1125–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Benadiva CA, Kligman I, Munne S. Aneuploidy 16 in human embryos increases significantly with maternal age. Fertil Steril. 1996;66:248–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Center, Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul Bilim University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Banu Bingol

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medicana International Ankara Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Faruk Abike

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul Bakirkoy Maternity and Children Diseases Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ali Gedikbasi

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Etlik Zubeyde Hanim Women’s Health Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Omer Lutfi Tapisiz

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul Alman Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ziya Gunenc

  6. Ali Samiyen Sok. 8/8 Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey

    Banu Bingol

Authors
  1. Banu Bingol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Faruk Abike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Gedikbasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Omer Lutfi Tapisiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ziya Gunenc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Banu Bingol or Faruk Abike.

Additional information

Statement for authors submitting original research: The responsible authors at the institute where the work has been carried out have approved the enclosed manuscript “Comparison of Chromosomal Abnormality Rates in ICSI for Non-Male Factor and Spontaneous Conception”. Authors certify that none of the materials in this manuscript has been published previously in any form and that none of this material is currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors have participated sufficiently in the intellectual content, the analysis of data and the writing the manuscript to take public responsibility for it.

Capsule

The chromosomal anomalies and aneuploidy rates following ICSI for non-male factor were similar to those following natural conception.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bingol, B., Abike, F., Gedikbasi, A. et al. Comparison of chromosomal abnormality rates in ICSI for non-male factor and spontaneous conception. J Assist Reprod Genet 29, 25–30 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9646-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9646-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation