Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from sperm selected by MACS from a randomized controlled trial
- 359 Downloads
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.
KeywordsOvum 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).
- 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
- 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
- 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