Next Article in Journal
A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study Assessing the Efficacy of Chinese Herbal Medicine (Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu Decoction) in the Treatment of Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
Next Article in Special Issue
Advanced Paternal Age Does Not Affect Medically-Relevant Obstetrical and Perinatal Outcomes following IVF or ICSI in Humans with Donated Oocytes
Previous Article in Journal
Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model for Surgical Success of Maxillomandibular Advancement for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Association of the Cumulative Live Birth Rate with the Factors in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Retrospective Study of 16,583 Women
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/jcm12020504
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assisted Reproductive Technology without Embryo Discarding or Freezing in Women ≥40 Years: A 5-Year Retrospective Study at a Single Center in Italy

by
Claudio Manna
1,2,*,
Federica Barbagallo
3,
Francesca Sagnella
1,
Ashraf Farrag
1 and
Aldo E. Calogero
3
1
Biofertility IVF and Infertility Center, 00128 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, 00133 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(2), 504; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020504
Submission received: 21 November 2022 / Revised: 3 January 2023 / Accepted: 4 January 2023 / Published: 7 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hot Topics in Reproductive Medicine Research)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The protocols commonly used in assisted reproductive technology (ART) consist of long-term embryo culture up to the blastocyst stage after the insemination of all mature oocytes, the freezing of all the embryos produced, and their subsequent transfer one by one. These practices, along with preimplantation genetic testing, although developed to improve the live birth rate (LBR) and reduce the risk of multiple pregnancies, are drawing attention to the possible increase in obstetric and perinatal risks, and adverse epigenetic consequences in offspring. Furthermore, ethical–legal concerns are growing regarding the increase in cryopreservation and storage of frozen embryos. In an attempt to reduce the risk associated with prolonged embryo culture and avoid embryo storage, we have chosen to inseminate a limited number of oocytes not exceeding the number of embryos to be transferred, after two days or less of culture. We retrospectively analyzed 245 ICSI cycles performed in 184 infertile couples with a female partner aged ≥40 from January 2016 to July 2021. The results showed a fertilization rate of 95.7%, a miscarriage rate of 48.9%, and a LBR of 10% with twin pregnancies of 16.7%. The cumulative LBR in our group of couples was 13%. No embryos were frozen. In conclusion, these results suggest that oocyte selection and embryo transfer at the cleaving stage constitute a practice that has a LBR comparable to that of the more commonly used protocols in older women who have reduced ovarian reserve.

1. Introduction

Louise Brown was born in 1978 with the transfer into the uterus of a single embryo obtained after the laparoscopic retrieval of one oocyte without ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) [1]. In the following decade, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) made it possible to collect a higher number of oocytes with the simultaneous transfer into the uterus of more embryos, increasing the success rate of the assisted reproductive technique (ART). Subsequently, embryo freezing became a standard procedure in ART centers to avoid multiple pregnancies. With the development of the vitrification technique, oocyte freezing became possible, and the efficiency of embryo freezing improved.
Another relevant advance in ART is the extended embryo culture up to the blastocyst stage [2]. This procedure has shown a higher implantation potential and a better live birth rate (LBR) in fresh transfer compared to cleaving embryos [3]. However, other studies have shown similar results in cumulative LBR between the two stages of embryo culture [4,5].
Nowadays, a constant trend is to freeze all embryos produced in ART cycles and transfer them one by one—the so-called single embryo transfer (SET)—in a suitably prepared endometrium to reduce multiple pregnancies and maximize the cumulative LBR [6]. Indeed, several studies have shown that SET reduces multiple pregnancies at a rate similar to that of spontaneous pregnancies (3%); in the case of multiple embryo transfer, the rate of multiple pregnancy can be very high (20–50%) [7,8]. Multiple pregnancies are considered the main iatrogenic complication of ART, due to their association with adverse events in both mothers and children [9]. Furthermore, the costs of multiple pregnancies and deliveries are 2–7 times higher than those of singletons [10]. However, not all embryos reach the blastocyst stage (60% for the competence value of IVF laboratories, according to the ESHRE Vienna Consensus of 2017) [11] and in a significant number of cycles the transfer is canceled: 17% in the study of Sainte-Rose et al., especially in older women [12], and 18.8% in the study by De Croo et al. [13]. Furthermore, criticisms have been raised about the effects of the SET policy on the LBR, which does not leave couples the freedom to choose more blastocysts to transfer [14]. Finally, a longer in vitro culture time can be a stressful condition for embryos and can be a source of other possible concerns such as increased obstetric risk [15,16,17,18,19] and epigenetic risk [20,21,22]. Although the negative effects of a long culture on embryos is not fully proven, previous studies reported an increased risk of preterm birth (<37 weeks) [15], small-for-gestational age (SGA) [15] or large-for-gestational age (LGA) [15,19], placenta previa, and placental abruption [15] in pregnancies after blastocyst transfer as compared to pregnancies after cleavage-stage transfer. Furthermore, growing evidence suggests an association between ART and epigenetic modifications that can be transmitted to offspring [23]. Unphysiological conditions, including embryo culture, have the potential to contribute to epigenetic dysregulation [23].
The most challenging endeavor in the ART laboratory is the ability to identify the embryos with the best potential to produce a live birth. The morphological criteria are subjective. Even with “time-lapse” technology, it is not possible to identify with certainty embryos capable of successfully implanting [24]. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is considered useful for discarding aneuploid (PGT-A) embryos to improve the implantation rate and reduce the miscarriage rate [25]. Many studies suggest that PGT-A can implement the use of elective SET (eSET), which selects first-quality embryos based on their morphology for transfer to patients undergoing ART [26], because the combination of the two approaches increases the live birth rate and reduces the multiple pregnancy rate [26]. There is also evidence that PGT-A in women between the ages of 35–40 can improve the clinical and live birth rates, and reduce the negative effects of maternal age on outcomes. However, the cumulative live birth rate does not appear to have improved [27,28]. Indeed, after more than 15 years, this technique still arouses some perplexity [29] because it is not possible to ascertain the ploidy of the whole embryo and, in particular, that of the inner cell mass with a sample of 5–7 cells taken from the trophectoderm. This uncertainty arises from several reasons: the high frequency of embryo mosaicism [30] due to chromosome instability [31], the ability of the embryo to recover from aneuploidy [32,33], and the birth of normal children after the transfer of aneuploid mosaic embryos [34]. Regarding mosaicism, a recent study conducted on 46 surplus cryopreserved preimplantation embryos demonstrated a low rate of cytogenetic concordance (48%) between the inner cell mass and trophectoderm. These results should suggest caution for the clinical application of PGT-A, considering that mosaicism was detected in 59% of embryos (n = 27/46) [35]. Accordingly, a recent meta-analysis showed no significant effect of PGT on the reduction of the miscarriage rate [36].
A particular concern in ART practice arises from embryo freezing, which leads to a growing number of embryos stored in cryobanks for an indefinite period of time. Indeed, there was a sharp increase in the United States (U.S.) from 2004 to 2013 of ART cycles in which all embryos have been frozen, and this resulted in a higher and increasing number of embryos stored [37], estimated to be 600,000 (or more) in the U.S. alone [38]. Concern about this topic can arise also in some countries where this practice is not allowed. In fact, in most countries, the mean age of women entering ART programs has seen an increasing trend (34.6% for the ART Italian registry and 20.4% for the U.S. Registry in 2019). Unfortunately, oocyte cryopreservation does not give acceptable results for a woman in the second half of her 30s and, particularly, for patients over 40 [39]. More recently, some authors describe a progression towards the industrialization of ART practices with possible negative consequences for couples such as a decline in ART birth rates [40], although personalized treatments should be a relevant aim for ART [41].
In this complex framework that shows possible limits and risks related to ART practices, we report the results of a personalized clinical practice used in a subgroup of women over 40 in our ART center. The protocol consisted of the selection of a limited number of oocytes to be injected, no more than the number of embryos to be transferred, and after a short time of embryo culture (two days or less). The primary aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the success rate of this protocol in the light of some of the more widespread problems and emerging risks of ART practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Selection

This clinical study included 245 ICSI cycles performed from January 2016 to July 2021 in 184 infertile couples with a female partner aged ≥40 years whose clinical charts were evaluated retrospectively. The mean age of the women was 42.4 ± 1.7 (range 40–47 years) and the mean of the previous failed ICSI attempts was 1.5 ± 1.9. The assessment of ovarian reserve was performed through antral follicular count (AFC) which was evaluated by the same experienced gynecologist (CM).

2.2. Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols were performed using recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (rhFSH) (Gonal-F, Merck Serono, Geneva, Switzerland) according to ovarian reserve, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (0.25 mg) from the day when a follicle reached 15 mm in diameter.
We also administered recombinant human luteinizing hormone (LH) at 75 IU (Luveris, Merck Serono, Geneva, Switzerland) every 12 h along with rhFSH increased by 75 IU during GnRH administration, according to data showing better outcomes in older female patients [42] and dramatic decrease in serum LH as a consequence of GnRH antagonist administration [43]. Follicular development monitoring was performed by real-time ultrasound scans from day 2 of the treatment cycle to the day of hCG administration based on the patient’s response to stimulation. The response was monitored by ultrasound, and measurements of serum levels of 17ß-estradiol, progesterone, and FSH, including on weekends or holidays. When at least one ovarian follicle reached a diameter of 18–20 mm, ICSI was performed 36–38 h after administration of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, Gonasi, 10,000 IU) (IBSA, Lodi, Italy).

2.3. Oocyte Retrieval

Oocyte retrieval was scheduled on a 7-day basis and performed with local analgesia or under sedation 36–38 h after hCG administration based on response to ovarian stimulation.

2.4. Sperm Preparation

The first semen collection was obtained approximately 5–6 h before the microinjection of oocytes, which was scheduled approximately 40 h after the hCG administration to the female partner. All male partners had 2–7 days of abstinence, as suggested by the WHO 2010 criteria [44]. All semen samples were collected by ejaculation within the Fertility Center to minimize conditions that could alter sperm parameters/function. All semen analyses were performed by the same expert embryologist according to WHO 2010 criteria. The assessment of sperm motility was performed on a 10 μL drop on a slide with a 22 × 22 mm coverslip and a stage heated to 37 °C, with a reticule lens. The slides were examined with phase-contrast optics at a magnification of 400×. We evaluated 400 spermatozoa per replicate for an accurate assessment of motility. We asked male partners with severe oligoasthenozoospermia (OA) to provide a second consecutive ejaculation 1 h after the first, after explaining the possibility of having better sperm parameters in the second ejaculate [45,46].

2.5. Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Procedure

The ICSI procedure was performed with spermatozoa obtained by “swim-up” using the first or second ejaculate according to the sperm parameters of the male partner as described in Section 2.4. The “swim-up” technique was performed directly from the liquefied semen. For this purpose, several aliquots of semen were taken from each sample and placed in test tubes underneath an overlay of washing medium (Origio Italia Srl, Rome, Italy). Round-bottom tubes or four-well dishes were used to optimize the interface surface area between the semen layer and the culture medium. The samples were allowed to incubate at 37 °C in an incubator for 30–45 min. Spermatozoa with the best motility and ability to migrate were then collected.
Collected cumulus-enclosed oocytes were maintained in 500 µL of Continuous Single Culture™ Medium-Complete (CSCM-C) (Irvine Scientific, FujiFilm, Tilburg, the Netherlands) in 4-well multi-dishes (Nunclon Surface, Roskilde, Denmark) under oil (oil for embryo culture, Fuji Film, Europe), and maintained in the incubator for 2 h after their retrieval. Afterward, they were decumulated in hyaluronidase drops (Hyaluronidase Solution, Fuji Film, Europe). The ICSI procedure was performed according to the standard technique.

2.6. Selection of Oocytes and Transfer Policy

The choice of the oocyte to be inseminated was made after decumulation. The best oocytes to inseminate were those with the following characteristics: small perivitelline space and no granulation [47], intact first polar body (PB) [48,49], and a smooth surface [50]. We discarded oocytes with vacuolar cytoplasm or central granulation, ovoid-shaped formation [51], cytoplasmic inclusion [48], smooth endoplasmic reticulum (SER) aggregates [52], and refractive bodies [53]. Oocyte selection was also based on oolemma elasticity, a parameter that positively influences the outcome of ICSI. In particular, we have distinguished three different degrees based on the elasticity of the oolemma: grade A refers to oocytes that have penetrated the oolemma without the need for cytoplasmic aspiration (no elasticity); grade B refers to oocytes showing oolemma penetration requiring mild or moderate cytoplasmic aspiration (average elasticity); grade C refers to oocytes showing oolemma penetration requiring strong cytoplasmic aspiration (excessive elasticity). If no oocyte reached the highest grade, which is grade B, the closest grade was chosen based on the oolemma characteristics (grade C and, lastly, grade A).
Embryo culture was performed in a standard incubator at 37 °C under 6% CO2 and 5% O2 in CSCM-C (Irvine Scientific, FujiFilm, Tilburg, The Netherlands). Embryo transfer was usually performed after 2 days of culture. In some cases, the transfer was performed at the pronuclear stage. After 36–44 h of culture, all embryos were carefully examined with both a dissecting and an inverted microscope. The classification of the embryos was carried out according to the system proposed by Puissant [54]. The number and size of blastomeres as well as the presence or absence of anucleated fragments were carefully recorded so that embryos could be scored as follows: 4 = embryos with clear and regular blastomeres and no fragmentation or a maximum of five % of the embryo surface occupied with small anucleated fragments; 3 = embryos with few or no fragments but with unequal blastomeres (>1/3 difference in size); 2 = embryos with more fragments but less than 1/3 of the embryo surface; 1 = fragments on >1/3 of the embryo surface. Two points were added if the embryo had reached the 4-cell stage by 48 h after fertilization.
With regard to the maximum number of embryos to be transferred, we followed the guidelines of the Practice Committee of the American Society for Human Reproduction and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology [9]. Therefore, in patients aged 40 years, three or four embryos could be transferred in the case of a particularly unfavorable prognosis; in patients aged 41–44 years, four embryos could be transferred, or even five when an unfavorable prognosis was present. A prognosis was considered unfavorable in the case of multiple previous ART cycle failures or no live births after an ART cycle. The informed consent was signed by the couples after an extensive discussion with the physicians on the maximum number of oocytes to be inseminated and, consequently, of embryos to be transferred. Eleven oocytes belonging to three couples were cryopreserved at their express request. In all cases, the selection of oocytes for the transfer of the resulting embryos was carried out according to the described criteria.

2.7. Ethical Approval

The study was conducted in the ART “Biofertility IVF Center” (Rome, Italy) on infertile couples undergoing ICSI treatment. It was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the “Biofertility IVF Center”, which indicated that ethical approval was not required for this study. Data collection followed the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided their informed consent, agreeing to supply their anonymous information for this and future studies.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Quantitative data were reported as mean ± SD throughout the study. The following rates were calculated: fertilization rate (FR = number of fertilized oocytes/number of oocytes inseminated), implantation rate (IR = number of gestational sacs/number of embryos transferred), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR = number of pregnancies with at least one fetal heartbeat/number of pick-up cycles with at least one oocyte retrieved), live birth delivery rate (LBR = number of deliveries with at least 1 live birth/number of pick-up with at least 1 oocyte retrieved), miscarriage rate (MR = number of spontaneous abortions/total number of pregnancies), and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR = number of deliveries with at least 1 live birth/total number of women with aspirated oocyte(s)) were calculated. Data were analyzed with SPSS 23.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

A total of 245 ICSI cycles performed in 184 couples with female partners aged ≥40 years were considered. Among the 184 couples enrolled, 39 couples underwent two ICSI cycles, 7 couples three attempts, and 2 couples four cycles.
Table 1 shows the clinical and demographic characteristics of the couples enrolled in this study and their previous failed ICSI attempts, which include both attempts performed in our and other ART centers. In six cycles, no oocytes were retrieved. Considering the repeated attempts for each couple, only two women had no transfer. Therefore, 182 women aged ≥40 years underwent 239 cycles with oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. A total of 705 embryos were transferred with a mean number of 2.9 ± 1.4 embryos per transfer. In 35 cycles, the embryos were transferred at the pronuclear stage.
The outcomes of ICSI cycles are shown in Table 2.
Twenty-four women have had at least one pregnancy. All pregnancies occurred in women between the ages of 40 and 44 years. As reported in the Materials and Methods section, according to the guidelines of the Practice Committee of the American Society for Human Reproduction and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology [9], we transferred a maximum of five embryos when an unfavorable prognosis was present. In total, we transferred five embryos in 48 cycles of our cohort. Interestingly, all pregnancies occurred when at least three embryos were transferred, except in five cases where two embryos were transferred. In detail, if we consider the 24 cycles with pregnancy leading to delivery and live birth: in half of them (12 cycles), five embryos were transferred; in five cases, four embryos were transferred; in two cases, three and in five cases, two. Of the 24 pregnancies, four were twins; in three of those cases, five embryos were transferred, while in one case five embryos were transferred. No triplets occurred. In Table 3, we report the number and grade of embryos transferred and the related success rates. Four pregnancies with deliveries occurred among 35 cycles with embryo transfer at the pronuclear stage, with a LBR of 11.4% (4/35), and included the two cycles with women at 44 years ending with normal delivery. Table 4 presents the LBR based on the age of the women. The twenty-four women who achieved pregnancy had a previous mean failure of 1.9 ± 1.8. The causes of infertility of the couples enrolled are reported in Figure 1.

4. Discussion

The results of the present study indicate that the selection of oocytes before ICSI to obtain a predetermined number of fresh cleaved embryos to be transferred is effective in terms of FR and LBR in a group of women ≥40 years. Our delivery rate (number of monitored deliveries/number of pick-ups or DR) was not lower than that of the Italian registry for the same age group (4.7% = 728/15,419) published in 2019 and not far from all age groups (11.2% = 5151/46,090) [55]. Furthermore, we reported a cumulative delivery rate (CLBR) for fresh cycle of 13%, whereas the Italian registry reported a CLBR of 5.9% for women aged between 40–42 years and 1.6% for women aged ≥43 years. With regard to CLBR per pick up, the Italian registry listed 10.3% for women aged between 40–42 years and 3.2% for women aged ≥ 43 years, whereas the U.S. registry reported a cumulative transfer live birth delivery (LBD) rate per pick-up of 13% in 2019 [56]. It should be noted that the CLBR with frozen embryos rules out cycles unable to give enough embryos for freezing procedures.
With regard to the success rate of blastocyst transfer in aged women, Tannus and colleagues reported a higher LBR than ours (21.6%), although the mean AFC was 14, mean of previous failed cycles was 0.5, and oocytes collected was 11 [57]. Our patient group exhibited a less favorable AFC (8.4) and a higher number of previous failed ART cycles (1.5 ± 1.9) (Table 1). In another study conducted by De Croo and colleagues, in women with a mean age of 35 years, the comparison of LBRs with transfer at the blastocyst stage (1 or 2 embryos) versus cleaved embryos was 21.1% and 19.1%, respectively [13].
A specific and usual reason for long-term embryo culture up to the blastocyst stage is to perform PGT-A. Apart from the reduced rate of blastocyst formation in patients over 40 years of age, several concerns have been raised for the PGT-A technique, such as the high genetic mosaicism rate, which interferes with the precise evaluation of embryo chromosomal arrangement and the mismatch in the aneuploidy rate between the trophectoderm and the inner cell mass [29]. Furthermore, increased obstetric and perinatal risks are reported with PGT-A compared with non-PGT-A cycles, particularly the development of hypertension in pregnancy [58]. However, PGT-A has become the most widely utilized add-on procedure in ART practice [29] and is a reference for validating or at least comparing the results of many clinical trials in the U.S.
One of the possible advantages of reconsidering embryo transfer in the cleavage stage is the epigenetic risk after embryo exposure to a long culture environment in terms of fetal health. Many studies have shown that extended embryo culture significantly affects obstetric and perinatal outcomes [19,59,60,61]. Large-for-gestational age/macrosomia, hypertensive disorders, and perinatal mortality appear to increase with frozen embryo transfer [62]. Vroman and colleagues have demonstrated that embryo culture from the one-cell to blastocyst stage results in placental overgrowth, reduced fetal weight, and lower placental DNA methylation in rats [63]. Surprisingly, a recent study demonstrated that human genomic activation initiates at the one-cell stage [64].
There is evidence that the longer the in vitro cultures last (i.e., blastocyst transfer in comparison to the cleavage stage), the more epigenetic changes occur [65,66]. We know that only a percentage of fertilized oocytes arrive at the blastocyst stage in vitro and recent observations suggest that metabolic and epigenetic dysfunctions underlie the arrest of human ART embryos before their compaction [67].
From a biological point of view, we cannot rule out the existence of better “culture” conditions for embryos in uterus rather than in vitro (temperature, pH, osmolarity, and numerous unknown factors). Interestingly the LBR subsequent to transfer at the pronuclear stage (at 44 years, two of them delivered at term without obstetric or perinatal complications) does not seem negligible (11.4%), supporting the idea that an artificial incubator environment might be more stressful than that within the uterus for embryos in older women. Most of the studies on obstetric and perinatal risk in ART are linked to placental abnormalities that are increased when ART is the chosen treatment of infertility, particularly in more stressful conditions for embryos, such as long-term cultures and PGT-A [68].
Concerns about the possible consequences of ICSI for the health of the offspring have been reported since its first introduction into clinical practice [69]. Although ICSI use was associated with a significantly higher risk of congenital malformations [70], other studies did not report a significant difference in terms of congenital malformation between children conceived with IVF/ICSI compared to natural conception [71,72]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed no differences in the epigenetic effects of offspring between couples treated with ICSI or traditional IVF [73]. In summary, after many decades of ICSI practice and according to most reports, children born after ICSI have perinatal outcomes comparable to those conceived after standard IVF.
With regard to the possible success rate of oocyte selection in ART practice, in 2004 and for many years, the Italian ART legislation limited the maximum number of oocytes to be fertilized during an ART cycle to three, and all resulting embryos had to be transferred at once due to the banning of embryo cryopreservation [74]. Ragni and colleagues, in a study including 1861 cycles performed in seven Italian fertility centers, showed that the pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval and the rate of multiple pregnancies before and after the new law were 27 and 24.2% (p = 0.18), and 25.8 and 20.9% (p = 0.11), respectively [68]. It is worth noting that in countries such as Germany and Switzerland, it is impossible to cryopreserve embryos and selection is based on oocytes at the pronuclear stage.
Regarding the problem of twin pregnancy rate, our results (16.7%) appear acceptable, considering that the Italian registry showed a rate of 10.6% in 2019 and it was 16.9% in Europe [75]. Recent reports criticize the SET policy in favor of double embryo transfer at the blastocyst stage [6]. However, our transfers were performed at the cleavage stage, in which a higher number of embryos transferred is to be considered comparable with a lower number at the blastocyst stage. Considering the risk of twin or multiple-order pregnancies and their resultant cost, the results of our study should be taken with caution for general clinical practice. Indeed, as reported in Table 3, in a considerable number of cycles we decided to transfer three or more embryos because there was a poor prognosis. At present, insemination with the transfer of more than two embryos should not be a routinely offered practice, even though the latest U.S. guidelines allow the transfer of more than two embryos for older women, low-quality embryos, and repeated implantation failures. On the other hand, blastocyst transfer is associated with a higher risk of monozygotic twinning (MZT) [76] which has a more severe prognosis than dizygotic twinning for the risk of twin-to-twin transfusion due to their shared placenta. After 8435 frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfers with hormone replacement treatment, MZT was observed in 2.32% of cases [77], while the natural prevalence was 0.4% [78]. However, the transfer of a very limited number of embryos at their cleavage stage after insemination of selected oocytes may represent a practical option in cases of high risk for twin or multiple pregnancies.
Clinical trials with a mix of oocyte selection and embryo selection at the cleavage stage may be considered, even in couples with female partners under the age of 40. It could represent a kind of double selection in order to simultaneously reduce the obstetric/epigenetic risk and the risk of multiple pregnancies.
Regarding the efficiency of oocyte selection, we notice that our FR was higher (95.7%) compared with the usually reported data such as that of ESHRE/Alpha consensus (≥65% for competence value) [11], probably due to a selection of oocytes based on multiple morphologic elements studies [48,49,79].
We recognize that oocyte selection in ART is mostly still imperfect, mainly because it is subjective. However, with the introduction of artificial intelligence in ART, new tools may be available to promote more objective observations [80,81], as we have previously proved [82]. Nevertheless, we should not forget that even the current embryo selection is also a subjective laboratory procedure. The possible transition from embryo to oocyte selection, using more reliable methods, could provide us with valuable information on the relationship between oocyte quality and stimulation protocols and, consequently, embryo development.
In summary, our study showed the success rate and twin delivery rate in women over the age of 40 using a protocol with oocyte (rather than embryo) selection and transfer of embryos in the cleavage stage. Non-negligible LBR and moderate multiple pregnancy rates were recorded. No embryos were frozen.
The application in clinical practice of the results described in the present study can be relevant for geographical areas where embryo freezing is not possible for ethical reasons or law restrictions, or for couples with low prognosis with a female partner aged ≥40 who do not accept oocyte donation.
Furthermore, the financial implications and cost/benefits of this protocol, i.e., strong personalization and drug use, are to be considered. In this regard, milder stimulation for this group of patients based on their residual ovarian reserve could offer similar chances of success. The small size of this subgroup of patients undergoing ART and the lack of a control group are the main limitations of our study. However, we enrolled a particular group of couples with female partners aged ≥40 years, which made it difficult to establish a control group. Certainly, further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the relevance of our retrospective findings.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the possibility of oocyte selection and embryo transfer at the cleavage stage appears to be a reasonable strategy in older women who have reduced ovarian reserve and a high number of previous ART failures. As clinicians, we should consider current trends in reproductive medicine from a broad perspective, taking into account all possible consequences involving obstetricians, neonatologists, pediatricians and all other professionals interested in the long-term health consequences of ART laboratory practice. Although further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our preliminary results suggest that a return to more natural steps in reproductive medicine may be safer if the obstetric risks and epigenetic consequences on offspring linked to long-term culture protocols are confirmed in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M.; methodology, A.F. and C.M.; formal analysis, F.B.; data curation, A.F. and F.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.; writing—review and editing, F.B., A.E.C. and C.M.; supervision, A.E.C. and C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Steptoe, P.C.; Edwards, R.G. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978, 312, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gardner, D.K.; Lane, M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: A feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum. Reprod. Updat. 1997, 3, 367–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gardner, D.K.; Schoolcraft, W.B.; Wagley, L.; Schlenker, T.; Stevens, J.; Hesla, J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in- vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 1998, 13, 3434–3440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Blake, D.A.; Farquhar, C.M.; Johnson, N.; Proctor, M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2007, 4, CD002118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Glujovsky, D.; Retamar, A.M.Q.; Sedo, C.R.A.; Ciapponi, A.; Cornelisse, S.; Blake, D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 2022, 1465–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vilska, S.; Tiitinen, A.; Hydén-Granskog, C.; Hovatta, O. Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Hum. Reprod. 1999, 14, 2392–2395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kamath, M.S.; Mascarenhas, M.; Kirubakaran, R.; Bhattacharya, S. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertili-sation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 8, CD003416. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  8. Monteleone, P.A.; Petersen, P.G.; Peregrino, P.F.; Miorin, J.; Gomes, A.P.; Fujii, M.G.; De Martin, H.; Bonetti, T.C.; Gonçalves, S.P. Should single embryo transfer be used in patients with any kind of infertility factor? Preliminary outcomes. JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2019, 23, 200–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: A committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2017, 107, 901–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Chambers, G.M.; Ledger, W. The economic implications of multiple pregnancy following ART. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014, 19, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: Report of an expert meeting on the development of ART labor-atory performance indicators. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2017, 35, 494–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Sainte-Rose, R.; Petit, C.; Dijols, L.; Frapsauce, C.; Guerif, F. Extended embryo culture is effective for patients of an advanced maternal age. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. De Croo, I.; Colman, R.; De Sutter, P.; Tilleman, K. Blastocyst transfer for all? Higher cumulative live birth chance in a blas-tocyst-stage transfer policy compared to a cleavage-stage transfer policy. Facts Views Vis. Obgyn. 2019, 11, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Gleicher, N.; Orvieto, R. Transferring more than one embryo simultaneously is justifiable in most patients. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2022, 44, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ernstad, E.G.; Bergh, C.; Khatibi, A.; Källén, K.B.; Westlander, G.; Nilsson, S.; Wennerholm, U.-B. Neonatal and maternal outcome after blastocyst transfer: A population-based registry study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 214, 378.e1–378.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Makinen, S.; Soderstrom-Anttila, V.; Vainio, J.; Suikkari, A.-M.; Tuuri, T. Does long in vitro culture promote large for gestational age babies? Hum. Reprod. 2013, 28, 828–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ishihara, O.; Araki, R.; Kuwahara, A.; Itakura, A.; Saito, H.; Adamson, G.D. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: An analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil. Steril. 2014, 101, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhu, J.; Lin, S.; Li, M.; Chen, L.; Lian, Y.; Liu, P.; Qiao, J. Effect of in vitro culture period on birthweight of singleton newborns. Hum. Reprod. 2014, 29, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Huang, J.; Yang, X.; Wu, J.; Kuang, Y.; Wang, Y. Impact of Day 7 Blastocyst Transfer on Obstetric and Perinatal Outcome of Singletons Born After Vitrified-Warmed Embryo Transfer. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Katari, S.; Turan, N.; Bibikova, M.; Erinle, O.; Chalian, R.; Foster, M.; Gaughan, J.P.; Coutifaris, C.; Sapienza, C. DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceived in vitro or in vivo. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2009, 18, 3769–3778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nelissen, E.C.; van Montfoort, A.P.; Dumoulin, J.C.; Evers, J.L. Epigenetics and the placenta. Hum. Reprod. Updat. 2011, 17, 397–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Novakovic, B.; Rakyan, V.; Ng, H.K.; Manuelpillai, U.; Dewi, C.; Wong, N.; Morley, R.; Down, T.; Beck, S.; Craig, J.M.; et al. Specific tumour-associated methylation in normal human term placenta and first-trimester cytotrophoblasts. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2008, 14, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Sciorio, R.; Tramontano, L.; Rapalini, E.; Bellaminutti, S.; Bulletti, F.M.; D’Amato, A.; Manna, C.; Palagiano, A.; Bulletti, C.; Esteves, S.C. Risk of genetic and epigenetic alteration in children conceived following ART: Is it time to return to nature whenever possible? Clin. Genet. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. ESHRE Working group on Time-lapse technology; Apter, S.; Ebner, T.; Freour, T.; Guns, Y.; Kovacic, B.; Le Clef, N.; Marques, M.; Meseguer, M.; Montjean, D.; et al. Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology. Hum. Reprod. Open 2020, 2020, hoaa008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Munné, S. Status of preimplantation genetic testing and embryo selection. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2018, 37, 393–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ubaldi, F.M.; Capalbo, A.; Colamaria, S.; Ferrero, S.; Maggiulli, R.; Vajta, G.; Sapienza, F.; Cimadomo, D.; Giuliani, M.; Gravotta, E.; et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after im-plementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: Pre-and post-intervention study. Hum. Reprod. 2015, 30, 2097–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Munné, S.; Kaplan, B.; Frattarelli, J.L.; Child, T.; Nakhuda, G.; Shamma, F.N.; Silverberg, K.; Kalista, T.; Handyside, A.H.; Katz-Jaffe, M.; et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil. Steril. 2019, 112, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kang, H.J.; Melnick, A.P.; Stewart, J.D.; Xu, K.; Rosenwaks, Z. Preimplantation genetic screening: Who benefits? Fertil. Steril. 2016, 106, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Gleicher, N.; Patrizio, P.; Brivanlou, A. Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy—A Castle Built on Sand. Trends Mol. Med. 2021, 27, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Taylor, T.H.; Gitlin, S.A.; Patrick, J.L.; Crain, J.L.; Wilson, J.M.; Griffin, D.K. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum. Reprod. Updat. 2014, 20, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vanneste, E.; Voet, T.; Le Caignec, C.; Ampe, M.; Konings, P.; Melotte, C.; Debrock, S.; Amyere, M.; Vikkula, M.; Schuit, F.; et al. Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat. Med. 2009, 15, 577–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bolton, H.; Graham, S.; Van Der Aa, N.; Kumar, P.; Theunis, K.; Gallardo, E.F.; Voet, T.; Zernicka-Goetz, M. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Orvieto, R.; Shimon, C.; Rienstein, S.; Jonish-Grossman, A.; Shani, H.; Aizer, A. Do human embryos have the ability of self-correction? Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2020, 18, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Greco, E.; Minasi, M.G.; Fiorentino, F. Healthy Babies after Intrauterine Transfer of Mosaic Aneuploid Blastocysts. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 2089–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Chavli, E.; van den Born, M.; Eleveld, C.; Boter, M.; van Marion, R.; Hoefsloot, L.; Laven, J.; Baart, E.; Van Opstal, D. Chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts: A cytogenetic comparison of trophectoderm and inner cell mass after next-generation sequencing. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2022, 45, 867–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Simopoulou, M.; Sfakianoudis, K.; Maziotis, E.; Tsioulou, P.; Grigoriadis, S.; Rapani, A.; Giannelou, P.; Asimakopoulou, M.; Kokkali, G.; Pantou, A.; et al. PGT-A: Who and when? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2021, 38, 1939–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Christianson, M.S.; Stern, J.E.; Sun, F.; Zhang, H.; Styer, A.K.; Vitek, W.; Polotsky, A.J. Embryo cryopreservation and utilization in the United States from 2004–2013. F&S Rep. 2020, 1, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hairston, J.C.; Kohlmeier, A.; Feinberg, E.C. Compassionate embryo transfer: Physician practices and perspectives. Fertil. Steril. 2020, 114, 552–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stoop, D. Social oocyte freezing. Facts, Views Vis. ObGyn 2010, 2, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Gleicher, N.; Kushnir, V.A.; Barad, D.H. Worldwide decline of IVF birth rates and its probable causes. Hum. Reprod. Open 2019, 2019, hoz017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Simón, C. Personalized assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 100, 922–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Conforti, A.; Esteves, S.C.; Humaidan, P.; Longobardi, S.; D’Hooghe, T.; Orvieto, R.; Vaiarelli, A.; Cimadomo, D.; Rienzi, L.; Ubaldi, F.M.; et al. Recombinant human luteinizing hormone co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2021, 19, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Westergaard, L.G.; Laursen, S.B.; Andersen, C.Y. Increased risk of early pregnancy loss by profound suppression of luteinizing hormone during ovarian stimulation in normogonadotrophic women undergoing assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod. 2000, 15, 1003–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, 5th ed.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; ISBN 978-92-4-154778-9. [Google Scholar]
  45. Manna, C.; Barbagallo, F.; Manzo, R.; Rahman, A.; Francomano, D.; Calogero, A.E. Sperm Parameters before and after Swim-Up of a Second Ejaculate after a Short Period of Abstinence. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Barbagallo, F.; Calogero, A.E.; Condorelli, R.A.; Farrag, A.; Jannini, E.A.; La Vignera, S.; Manna, C. Does a Very Short Length of Abstinence Improve Assisted Reproductive Technique Outcomes in Infertile Patients with Severe Oligo-Asthenozoospermia? J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ubaldi, F.; Rienzi, L. Morphological Selection of Gametes. Placenta 2008, 29, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Xia, P. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Correlation of oocyte grade based on polar body, perivitelline space and cytoplasmic inclusions with fertilization rate and embryo quality. Hum. Reprod. 1997, 12, 1750–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ebner, T.; Yaman, C.; Moser, M.; Sommergruber, M.; Feichtinger, O.; Tews, G. Prognostic value of first polar body morphology on fertilization rate and embryo quality in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod. 2000, 15, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ebner, T.; Moser, M.; Sommergruber, M.; Yaman, C.; Pfleger, U.; Tews, G. First polar body morphology and blastocyst formation rate in ICSI patients. Hum. Reprod. 2002, 17, 2415–2418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Ebner, T.; Moser, M.; Shebl, O.; Sommerguber, M.; Tews, G. Prognosis of oocytes showing aggregation of smooth endoplasmic reticulum. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2008, 16, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Setti, A.S.; Figueira, R.C.S.; de Almeida Ferreira Braga, D.P.; Azevedo, M.D.C.; Iaconelli, A.; Borges, E. Oocytes with smooth endoplasmic reticulum clusters originate blastocysts with impaired implantation potential. Fertil. Steril. 2016, 106, 1718–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Otsuki, J.; Nagai, Y.; Chiba, K. Lipofuscin bodies in human oocytes as an indicator of oocyte quality. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2007, 24, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Puissant, F.; Van Rysselberge, M.; Barlow, P.; Deweze, J.; Leroy, F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum. Reprod. 1987, 2, 705–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Assisted Reproductive Technology National Registry; National Institute of Health: Rome, Italy, 2019.
  56. Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Fertility Clinic and National Summary Report 2019; National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. US Dept of Health and Human Services 200: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
  57. Tannus, S.; Son, W.-Y.; Dahan, M. Elective single blastocyst transfer in advanced maternal age. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2017, 34, 741–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Makhijani, R.; Bartels, C.B.; Godiwala, P.; Bartolucci, A.; DiLuigi, A.; Nulsen, J.; Grow, D.; Benadiva, C.; Engmann, L. Impact of trophectoderm biopsy on obstetric and perinatal outcomes following frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles. Hum. Reprod. 2021, 36, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Fernando, D.; Halliday, J.L.; Breheny, S.; Healy, D.L. Outcomes of singleton births after blastocyst versus non blastocyst transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril. 2012, 97, 579–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Martins, W.P.; Nastri, C.O.; Rienzi, L.; van der Poel, S.Z.; Gracia, C.; Racowsky, C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 49, 583–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Alviggi, C.; Conforti, A.; Carbone, I.F.; Borrelli, R.; De Placido, G.; Guerriero, S. Influence of cryopreservation on perinatal outcome after blastocyst- vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 51, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Orvieto, R.; Kirshenbaum, M.; Gleicher, N. Is Embryo Cryopreservation Causing Macrosomia—And What Else? Front. Endocrinol. 2020, 11, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Vrooman, L.A.; Rhon-Calderon, E.A.; Chao, O.Y.; Nguyen, D.K.; Narapareddy, L.; Dahiya, A.K.; Putt, M.E.; Schultz, R.M.; Bartolomei, M.S. Assisted reproductive technologies induce temporally specific placental defects and the preeclampsia risk marker sFLT1 in mouse. Development 2020, 147, dev186551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Asami, M.; Lam, B.Y.H.; Ma, M.K.; Rainbow, K.; Braun, S.; VerMilyea, M.D.; Yeo, G.S.H.; Perry, A.C.F. Human embryonic genome activation initiates at the one-cell stage. Cell Stem. Cell 2022, 29, 209–216.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Cagnone, G.; Sirard, M.A. The embryonic stress response to in vitro culture: Insight from genomic analysis. Reproduction 2016, 152, R247–R261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Maheshwari, A.; Hamilton, M.; Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod. Biomed. Online 2016, 32, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Yang, Y.; Shi, L.; Fu, X.; Ma, G.; Yang, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Yuan, L.; Xia, Y.; Zhong, X.; et al. Metabolic and epigenetic dysfunctions underlie the arrest of in vitro fertilized human embryos in a senescent-like state. PLoS Biol. 2022, 20, e3001682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ragni, G.; Allegra, A.; Anserini, P.; Causio, F.; Ferraretti, A.P.; Greco, E.; Palermo, R.; Somigliana, E. The 2004 Italian legislation regulating assisted reproduction technology: A multicentre survey on the results of IVF cycles. Hum. Reprod. 2005, 20, 2224–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Palermo, G.; Joris, H.; Devroey, P.; Van Steirteghem, A.C. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992, 340, 17–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, Z.; Wang, A.Y.; Bowman, M.; Hammarberg, K.; Farquhar, C.; Johnson, L.; Safi, N.; A Sullivan, E. ICSI does not increase the cumulative live birth rate in non-male factor infertility. Hum. Reprod. 2018, 33, 1322–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. De Rycke, M.; Liebaers, I.; Van Steirteghem, A. Epigenetic risks related to assisted reproductive technologies: Risk analysis and epigenetic inheritance. Hum. Reprod. 2002, 17, 2487–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Ben Maamar, M.; Beck, D.; Nilsson, E.; McCarrey, J.R.; Skinner, M.K. Developmental alterations in DNA methylation during gametogenesis from primordial germ cells to sperm. iScience 2022, 25, 103786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cannarella, R.; Crafa, A.; Mongioì, L.M.; Leggio, L.; Iraci, N.; La Vignera, S.; Condorelli, R.A.; Calogero, A.E. DNA Methylation in Offspring Conceived after Assisted Reproductive Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Manna, C.; Nardo, L.G. Italian law on assisted conception: Clinical and research implications. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2005, 11, 532–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. De Geyter, C.; Wyns, C.; Calhaz-Jorge, C.; de Mouzon, J.; Ferraretti, A.P.; Kupka, M.; Nyboe Andersen, A.; Nygren, K.G.; Goossens, V. 20 years of the European IVF-monitoring Consortium registry: What have we learned? A comparison with reg-istries from two other regions. Hum. Reprod. 2020, 35, 2832–2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ding, J.; Yin, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, D.; Yang, J. The effect of blastocyst transfer on newborn sex ratio and monozygotic twinning rate: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2018, 37, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Otsuki, J.; Iwasaki, T.; Katada, Y.; Sato, H.; Furuhashi, K.; Tsuji, Y.; Matsumoto, Y.; Shiotani, M. Grade and looseness of the inner cell mass may lead to the development of monochorionic diamniotic twins. Fertil. Steril. 2016, 106, 640–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Bulmer, M.G. The Biology of Twinning in Man; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1970; ISBN1 10: 0198573472. ISBN2 13: 9780198573470. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wilding, M.; Di Matteo, L.; D’Andretti, S.; Montanaro, N.; Capobianco, C.; Dale, B. An oocyte score for use in assisted reproduction. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2007, 24, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Zaninovic, N.; Rosenwaks, Z. Artificial intelligence in human in vitro fertilization and embryology. Fertil. Steril. 2020, 114, 914–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Manna, C.; Patrizi, G.; Rahman, A.; Sallam, H. Experimental results on the recognition of embryos in human assisted reproduction. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2004, 8, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Manna, C.; Nanni, L.; Lumini, A.; Pappalardo, S. Artificial intelligence techniques for embryo and oocyte classification. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2013, 26, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 00504 g001 550
Figure 1. (Left panel): Main causes of infertility found in the 184 couples enrolled in this study. (Right panel): Detail of the main causes of female infertility.
Figure 1. (Left panel): Main causes of infertility found in the 184 couples enrolled in this study. (Right panel): Detail of the main causes of female infertility.
Jcm 12 00504 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the female and male partners of the couples enrolled in this study.
Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the female and male partners of the couples enrolled in this study.
ParametersResults
Women
Age (years, mean ± SD)42.4 ± 1.7
Antral follicle count (mean ± SD)8.4 ± 4.9
Total dosage of gonadotropin administered (IU) (mean ± SD)3376.6 ± 1335.9
Men
Age (years, mean ± SD)43.9 ± 5.9
Sperm concentration (mil/mL, mean ± SD)46.7 ± 40.6
Total sperm motility (%, mean ± SD)47.4 ± 21.3
Progressive sperm motility (%, mean ± SD)26.3 ± 16.8
Spermatozoa with normal morphology (%, mean ± SD)15.2 ± 10.3
Couples
Number of previous ART failures (mean ± SD)1.5 ± 2
Legend: IU: international unit.
Table
Table 2. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes.
Table 2. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes.
Fresh cycles245
Number of oocytes retrieved (mean ± SD)5.2 ± 4.1
Number of oocytes inseminated (mean ± SD)3.1 ± 1.5
Number of oocytes fertilized (mean ± SD)3.1 ± 1.5
Number of oocytes cryopreserved (mean ± SD)0.06 ± 0.5
Peak of stimulated 17ß-estradiol (pg/mL)1271.0 ± 744.5
Fertilization rate
Number of fertilized oocytes/number of oocytes inseminated (%)		715/747 (95.7%)
Implantation rate
Number of gestational sacs/number of embryos transferred (%)		47/705 (6.7%)
Clinical pregnancy rate
Number of pregnancies with least 1 fetal heartbeat/number of pick-up cycles with at least 1 oocyte (%)		31/239 (13%)
Live birth delivery rate
Number of deliveries with at least 1 live birth/number of pick-ups with at least 1 oocyte (%)
  • Singletons
  • Twins

24/239 (10%)
20
4 (16.7%)
Birth weight (g, mean ± SD)3112.3 ± 698.9
Miscarriage rate
Number of spontaneous abortion/total number of gestational sacs (%)		23/47 (48.9%)
Cumulative live birth rate
Number of deliveries with at least 1 live birth/total number of women starting treatment (%)		24/184 (13%)
Table
Table 3. Number and grade of embryos transferred and related success rates.
Table 3. Number and grade of embryos transferred and related success rates.
Number of Embryos TransferredTotal Number of Embryo- TransfersEmbryos Grade IEmbryos Grade IIEmbryos Grade III–IVPNLive BirthsTwin BirthMultiple Births (≥3)
1n = 42 (17.6%)n = 23n = 10n = 4n = 5n = 0n = 0n = 0
2n = 59 (24.7%)n = 69n = 32n = 1n = 16n = 5n = 0n = 0
3n = 55 (23.0%)n = 97n = 39n = 5n = 24n = 2n = 1n = 0
4n = 35 (14.6%)n = 91n = 27n = 5n = 17n = 5n = 0n = 0
5n = 48 (20.1%)n = 156n = 54n = 14n = 16n = 12n = 3n = 0
Legend: grade I = blastomeres of equal size, without fragmentation or with <10% fragmentation; grade II = slight asymmetry between blastomeres and fragmentation of 10–25%; grade III–IV = asymmetric blastomeres and fragmentation of ≥35%. Abbreviations: PN = pronuclear stage.
Table
Table 4. Live birth rates based on the woman’s age and the number of cases (n).
Table 4. Live birth rates based on the woman’s age and the number of cases (n).
Age of Women (Years)Number of Live Births (%)
40 (n = 33)7/24 (29.2%)
41 (n = 53)6/24 (25%)
42 (n = 51)5/24 (20.8%)
43 (n = 42)4/24 (16.7%)
44 (n = 39)2/24 (8.3%)
≥45 (n = 27)0/24 (0%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Manna, C.; Barbagallo, F.; Sagnella, F.; Farrag, A.; Calogero, A.E. Assisted Reproductive Technology without Embryo Discarding or Freezing in Women ≥40 Years: A 5-Year Retrospective Study at a Single Center in Italy. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020504

AMA Style

Manna C, Barbagallo F, Sagnella F, Farrag A, Calogero AE. Assisted Reproductive Technology without Embryo Discarding or Freezing in Women ≥40 Years: A 5-Year Retrospective Study at a Single Center in Italy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(2):504. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020504

Chicago/Turabian Style

Manna, Claudio, Federica Barbagallo, Francesca Sagnella, Ashraf Farrag, and Aldo E. Calogero. 2023. "Assisted Reproductive Technology without Embryo Discarding or Freezing in Women ≥40 Years: A 5-Year Retrospective Study at a Single Center in Italy" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 2: 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020504

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop