Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 201–207 | Cite as

Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from sperm selected by MACS from a randomized controlled trial

  • Laura Romany
  • Nicolas Garrido
  • Ana Cobo
  • Belen Aparicio-Ruiz
  • Vicente Serra
  • Marcos MeseguerEmail author
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



The purpose of this study is to assess outcomes after magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) technology on obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared with those achieved after swim up from randomized controlled trial.


This is a two-arm, unicentric, prospective, randomized, and triple-blinded trial and has a total of 237 infertile couples, between October 2010 and January 2013. A total of 65 and 66 newborns from MACS and control group, respectively, were described.


MACS had no clinically relevant adverse effects on obstetric and perinatal outcomes. No differences were found for obstetric problems including premature rupture of membranes 6.1% (CI95% 0–12.8) vs. 5.9% (CI95% 0–12.4), 1st trimester bleeding 28.6% (CI95% 15.9–41.2) vs. 23.5% (CI95% 11.9–35.1), invasive procedures as amniocentesis 2.0% (CI95% 0–5.9) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0–9.2), diabetes 14.3% (CI95% 4.5–24.1) vs. 9.8% (CI95% 1.6–17.9), anemia 6.1% (CI95% 0–12.8) vs. 5.9%(CI95% 0–12.4), 2nd and 3rd trimesters 10.2% (CI95% 1.7–18.7) vs. 5.9% (CI95% 0–12.4), urinary tract infection 8.2% (CI95% 0.5–15.9) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0–9.2), pregnancy-induced hypertension 6.1% (CI95% 0–12.8) vs. 15.7% (CI95% 5.7–25.7), birth weight (g) 2684.10 (CI95% 2499.48–2868.72) vs. 2676.12 (CI95% 2499.02–2852.21), neonatal height (cm) 48.3 (CI95% 47.1–49.4) vs. 46.5 (CI95% 44.6–48.4), and gestational cholestasis 0%(CI95% 0–0) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0–9.2), respectively, in MACS group compared with control group.


Our data suggest that MACS technology does not increase or decrease Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes in children conceived when this technology was performed, being the largest randomized control trial with live birth reported results with MACS.


Ovum donation program MACS technology Sperm selection Perinatal outcome Obstetrics 


Compliance with ethical standards

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, Valencia, Spain (0810-C-051-MM).


  1. 1.
    Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A. An update on the clinical assessment of the infertile male [corrected]. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(4):691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewis SE. Is sperm evaluation useful in predicting human fertility? Reproduction. 2007;134(1):31–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delbes G, Herrero MB, Troeung ET, Chan PT. The use of complimentary assays to evaluate the enrichment of human sperm quality in asthenoteratozoospermic and teratozoospermic samples processed with Annexin-V magnetic activated cell sorting. Andrology. 2013;1(5):698–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garrido N, Garcia-Herrero S, Meseguer M. Assessment of sperm using mRNA microarray technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):1008–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garrido N, Martinez-Conejero JA, Jauregui J, Horcajadas JA, Simon C, Remohi J, et al. Microarray analysis in sperm from fertile and infertile men without basic sperm analysis abnormalities reveals a significantly different transcriptome. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4 Suppl):1307–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glander HJ, Schaller J. Binding of annexin V to plasma membranes of human spermatozoa: a rapid assay for detection of membrane changes after cryostorage. Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5(2):109–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vermes I, Haanen C, Steffens-Nakken H, Reutelingsperger C. A novel assay for apoptosis. Flow cytometric detection of phosphatidylserine expression on early apoptotic cells using fluorescein labelled Annexin V. J Immunol Methods. 1995;184(1):39–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pesce M, De Felici M. Purification of mouse primordial germ cells by MiniMACS magnetic separation system. Dev Biol. 1995;170(2):722–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Makker K, Agarwal A, Sharma RK. Magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS): utility in assisted reproduction. Indian J Exp Biol. 2008;46(7):491–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dirican EK, Ozgun OD, Akarsu S, Akin KO, Ercan O, Ugurlu M, et al. Clinical outcome of magnetic activated cell sorting of non-apoptotic spermatozoa before density gradient centrifugation for assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(8):375–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Romany L, Meseguer M, Garcia S, Pellicer A, Garrido N. Magnetic activated sorting selection (MACS) of non-apoptotic sperm (NAS) improves pregnancy rates in homologous intrauterine insemination (IUI). Preliminary data. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):S14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romany L, Garrido N, Motato Y, Aparicio B, Remohi J, Meseguer M. 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. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1567–75.e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2239–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meseguer M, Santiso R, Garrido N, Garcia-Herrero S, Remohi J, Fernandez JL. Effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on pregnancy outcome depends on oocyte quality. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):124–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cobo A, Serra V, Garrido N, Olmo I, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1006–1015.e4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Polak de Fried E, Denaday F. Single and twin ongoing pregnancies in two cases of previous ART failure after ICSI performed with sperm sorted using annexin V microbeads. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):351.e15–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rawe VY, Boudri HU, Alvarez Sedo C, Carro M, Papier S, Nodar F. Healthy baby born after reduction of sperm DNA fragmentation using cell sorting before ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20(3):320–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herrero MB, Delbes G, Chung JT, Son WY, Holzer H, Buckett W, et al. Case report: the use of annexin V coupled with magnetic activated cell sorting in cryopreserved spermatozoa from a male cancer survivor: healthy twin newborns after two previous ICSI failures. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(11):1415–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Said TM, Agarwal A, Zborowski M, Grunewald S, Glander HJ, Paasch U. Utility of magnetic cell separation as a molecular sperm preparation technique. J Androl. 2008;29(2):134–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Romany
    • 1
  • Nicolas Garrido
    • 1
  • Ana Cobo
    • 1
  • Belen Aparicio-Ruiz
    • 1
  • Vicente Serra
    • 1
  • Marcos Meseguer
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Instituto Valenciano de InfertilidadUniversidad de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Instituto Valenciano de InfertilidadValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations