» Articles » PMID: 31396849

The Use of Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Analysis on Sperm: Indications to Perform and Assisted Reproduction Technology Outcomes

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2019 Aug 10
PMID 31396849
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To determine the consequences of an altered sperm fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) result for ART outcomes and the indications for a sperm FISH analysis.

Methods: Data from 439 infertile men were collected. Bivariate analyses were performed to determine the association of men's age, seminal alterations, and sperm FISH indication, with the incidence of X, Y, 13, 18, and 21 sperm chromosomal abnormalities. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to establish the most predictive variables for altered sperm FISH. Results from the IVF/ICSI cycles were collected for 248 out of 439 patients. Two distinct groups were established: 151 couples that used their own oocytes and 97 couples involved in egg donation programs. In both groups, ART outcomes were compared between normal and altered sperm FISH.

Results: Teratozoospermia and oligozoospermia were associated with sperm chromosome anomalies (p < 0.05). Indications for sperm FISH analysis with the highest predictability were teratozoospermia, male age, oligozoospermia, and implantation failure (AUC = 0.702). Embryo quality (p = 0.096), pregnancy rate (p = 0.054), and implantation rate (p = 0.089) were higher in own-oocytes couples with normal sperm FISH than in altered sperm FISH couples, although differences were not statistically significant. In donor-oocytes couples, in which high-quality embryos were transferred later than in own-oocytes couples (3.8 vs. 3.0 days), we did not identify differences in the ART outcome between normal and altered sperm FISH couples. In both groups, the possible interference of woman age was negligible.

Conclusions: Sperm FISH is indicated in middle-aged oligoteratozoospermic patients with implantation failures in previous IVF/ICSI cycles. Sperm chromosome anomalies have a moderate detrimental impact on embryo quality, implantation, and pregnancy rates.

Citing Articles

ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure.

Cimadomo D, de Los Santos M, Griesinger G, Lainas G, Le Clef N, McLernon D Hum Reprod Open. 2023; 2023(3):hoad023.

PMID: 37332387 PMC: 10270320. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoad023.


The relevance of sperm morphology in male infertility.

Moretti E, Signorini C, Noto D, Corsaro R, Collodel G Front Reprod Health. 2022; 4:945351.

PMID: 36303645 PMC: 9580829. DOI: 10.3389/frph.2022.945351.

References
1.
Bernardini L, Costa M, Bottazzi C, Gianaroli L, Magli M, Venturini P . Sperm aneuploidy and recurrent pregnancy loss. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004; 9(3):312-20. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62147-5. View

2.
Sarrate Z, Vidal F, Blanco J . Role of sperm fluorescent in situ hybridization studies in infertile patients: indications, study approach, and clinical relevance. Fertil Steril. 2009; 93(6):1892-902. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.139. View

3.
Rubio C, Gil-Salom M, Simon C, Vidal F, Rodrigo L, Minguez Y . Incidence of sperm chromosomal abnormalities in a risk population: relationship with sperm quality and ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16(10):2084-92. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.10.2084. View

4.
Carrell D, Wilcox A, Lowy L, Peterson C, Jones K, Erickson L . Elevated sperm chromosome aneuploidy and apoptosis in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101(6):1229-35. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00339-9. View

5.
Coughlan C, Ledger W, Wang Q, Liu F, Demirol A, Gurgan T . Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 28(1):14-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.011. View