Time Intervals Between Semen Production, Initiation of Analysis, and IUI Significantly Influence Clinical Pregnancies and Live Births

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2021 Jan 6

PMID 33403503

Citations 5

Authors

U Punjabi

H Van Mulders

L van de Velde

I Goovaerts

K Peeters

W Cassauwers

T Lyubetska

K Clasen

P Janssens

O Zemtsova

E Roelant

D De Neubourg

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Does IDEF mapping help monitor the technical process of IUI and explore the potential improvements which might contribute to increased pregnancy and live birth rates?

Method: Retrospective analysis of 1729 homologous IUI cycles of couples attending a fertility clinic in a university hospital setting. Standardized conventional semen parameters were analyzed and the semen samples prepared via discontinuous density gradient centrifugation.

Results: There was no significant association between sperm concentration, motility and morphology (analysis phase), and pregnancy outcome. Only female and male ages were significantly associated with the pregnancy outcome. There was a significant difference in the odds on clinical pregnancies and live births when analysis was ≤ 21 min initiated, and < 107 min between sample production and IUI, adjusted for male and female age.

Conclusions: Adjusting for the couple's age, we could show that time intervals between semen production and analysis and IUI when kept low significantly influenced clinical pregnancies and live births.

Citing Articles

Ejaculate Adjustment in Response to Sperm Competition Risk in Humans.

DeLecce T, Vance G, Zeigler-Hill V, Welling L, Shackelford T Arch Sex Behav. 2024; 54(1):277-287.

PMID: 39500803 DOI: 10.1007/s10508-024-03030-0.

Sperm DNA Fragmentation after Cryopreservation and Sperm Selection Has No Implications for Clinical Pregnancies and Live Births after Intrauterine Insemination with Donor Sperm.

Sugihara A, Punjabi U, Chimienti T, Goovaerts I, Peeters K, Bouziotis J J Pers Med. 2023; 13(12).

PMID: 38138895 PMC: 10745103. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13121668.

A short versus a long time interval between semen collection and intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Statema-Lohmeijer C, Schats R, Lissenberg-Witte B, Kostelijk E, Lambalk C, Vergouw C Hum Reprod. 2023; 38(5):811-819.

PMID: 36892580 PMC: 10152164. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead044.

Variability in Sperm DNA Fragmentation in Men with Mild/Unexplained Subfertility in a Prospective Longitudinal Intrauterine Insemination Trial.

Punjabi U, Roelant E, Peeters K, Goovaerts I, Van Mulders H, De Neubourg D Life (Basel). 2022; 12(11).

PMID: 36362981 PMC: 9698842. DOI: 10.3390/life12111826.

Extend the Survival of Human Sperm In Vitro in Non-Freezing Conditions: Damage Mechanisms, Preservation Technologies, and Clinical Applications.

Cheng Q, Li L, Jiang M, Liu B, Xian Y, Liu S Cells. 2022; 11(18).

PMID: 36139420 PMC: 9496714. DOI: 10.3390/cells11182845.

References

Ombelet W, Puttemans P, Bosmans E . Intrauterine insemination: a first-step procedure in the algorithm of male subfertility treatment. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10 Suppl 1:90-102. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/10.suppl_1.90. View

Duran H, Morshedi M, Kruger T, Oehninger S . Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update. 2002; 8(4):373-84. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/8.4.373. View

Goverde A, McDonnell J, Vermeiden J, Schats R, Rutten F, Schoemaker J . Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2000; 355(9197):13-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04002-7. View

Cohlen B, Te Velde E, van Kooij R, Looman C, Habbema J . Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treating male subfertility: a controlled study. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13(6):1553-8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.6.1553. View

Khalil M, Rasmussen P, Erb K, Laursen S, Rex S, Westergaard L . Intrauterine insemination with donor semen. An evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 1131 cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001; 80(4):342-8. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080004342.x. View

Tomlinson M, Thompson K, Kasraie J, Bentick B . Prognostic indicators for intrauterine insemination (IUI): statistical model for IUI success. Hum Reprod. 1996; 11(9):1892-6. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019513. View

Ragni G, Maggioni P, Guermandi E, Testa A, Baroni E, Colombo M . Efficacy of double intrauterine insemination in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999; 72(4):619-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00326-x. View

Badawy A, Elnashar A, Eltotongy M . Effect of sperm morphology and number on success of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(3):777-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.010. View

Montanaro Gauci M, Kruger T, Coetzee K, Smith K, van der Merwe J, Lombard C . Stepwise regression analysis to study male and female factors impacting on pregnancy rate in an intrauterine insemination programme. Andrologia. 2001; 33(3):135-41. DOI: 10.1046/j.1439-0272.2001.00428.x. View

10.

Yavuz A, Demirci O, Sozen H, Uludogan M . Predictive factors influencing pregnancy rates after intrauterine insemination. Iran J Reprod Med. 2014; 11(3):227-34. PMC: 3943223. View

11.

Zhao Y, Vlahos N, Wyncott D, Petrella C, Garcia J, Zacur H . Impact of semen characteristics on the success of intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004; 21(5):143-8. PMC: 3455523. DOI: 10.1023/b:jarg.0000031246.76666.f6. View

12.

Ombelet W, Vandeput H, Van de Putte G, Cox A, Janssen M, Jacobs P . Intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: predictive potential of inseminating motile count and sperm morphology. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12(7):1458-63. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/12.7.1458. View

13.

Carrell D, Kuneck P, Peterson C, Hatasaka H, Jones K, Campbell B . A randomized, prospective analysis of five sperm preparation techniques before intrauterine insemination of husband sperm. Fertil Steril. 1998; 69(1):122-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)00446-9. View

14.

Sun Y, Li B, Fan L, Zhu W, Chen X, Feng J . Does sperm morphology affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination in patients with normal sperm concentration and motility?. Andrologia. 2012; 44(5):299-304. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.2012.01280.x. View

15.

van Weert J, Repping S, Van Voorhis B, van der Veen F, Bossuyt P, Mol B . Performance of the postwash total motile sperm count as a predictor of pregnancy at the time of intrauterine insemination: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82(3):612-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.01.042. View

16.

Cohlen B, Bijkerk A, van der Poel S, Ombelet W . IUI: review and systematic assessment of the evidence that supports global recommendations. Hum Reprod Update. 2018; 24(3):300-319. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmx041. View

17.

Adamson G, de Mouzon J, Chambers G, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O . International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: world report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110(6):1067-1080. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.039. View

18.

Lemmens L, Kos S, Beijer C, Braat D, Nelen W, Wetzels A . Techniques used for IUI: is it time for a change?. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(9):1835-1845. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex223. View

19.

Bjorndahl L, Barratt C, Mortimer D, Jouannet P . 'How to count sperm properly': checklist for acceptability of studies based on human semen analysis. Hum Reprod. 2015; 31(2):227-32. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev305. View

20.

Punjabi U, Gerris J, van Bijlen J, Delbeke L, GIELIS M, Buytaert P . Comparison between different pre-treatment techniques for sperm recovery prior to intrauterine insemination, GIFT or IVF. Hum Reprod. 1990; 5(1):75-83. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137046. View