4.6 Article

Artificial oocyte activation improves cycles with prospects of ICSI fertilization failure: a sibling oocyte control study

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 199-204

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.03.216

Keywords

Artificial oocyte activation; ICSI fertilization failure; Sibling oocyte

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81501322]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7172236]
  3. National Key Research and Development Program [2018YFC1002106]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research question: Does artificial oocyte activation improve clinical outcomes for patients at risk of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) fertilization failure? Design: In this study, sibling oocytes from patients with previous ICSI failure or severe teratozoospermia were divided equally into two groups, half for artificial oocyte activation (AOA) with ionomycin after conventional ICSI and the other half for conventional ICSI only (non-AOA). The fertilization rates, cleavage rates, transferable embryo rates and blastulation rates of the two groups were compared first; the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were also compared to assess the efficiency and safety of AOA. Result: The outcomes of the AOA group were significantly better than those of the conventional ICSI group in terms of the fertilization (50.38% versus 33.86%, respectively, P < 0.001), cleavage (59.16% versus 39.04%, respectively, P < 0.001) and transferable embryo rates (43.51% versus 26.69%, respectively, P < 0.001). The blastulation (43.53% versus 36.11%, respectively), implantation (26.83% versus 15.79%, respectively), clinical pregnancy (38.46% versus 25%, respectively) and live birth rates (38.46% versus 16.67%, respectively) were not significantly different. Conclusion: This study showed that AOA improved some aspects of cycles at risk of ICSI failure by increasing the fertilization and transferable embryo rates. But blastulation, pregnancy and implantation rates were not improved. The study is limited by its small size and absence of data on cumulative outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available