Citation Information :
Babu J, Nagaraj C, Saravanan M, Sharma N. Comparison of Effects of Stimulation Days on Oocyte Morphology and Day 5 Blastocyst Rate in ICSI Cycle. J Obstet Gynaecol 2023; 1 (2):49-53.
Aim: To compare and identify the effect of normal and prolonged stimulation on oocyte morphology and day 5 blastocyst rate in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle in normal reserve patients.
Materials and methodology: A comparative study where two groups were considered—patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for ICSI cycle with anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) 2–4 ng/mL with stimulation days of 10 and 11, and patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for ICSI cycle with AMH 2–4 ng/mL with stimulation days of 12, 13, and 14 between March 2023 and May 2023. The mean AMH value was 2.91 ng/mL. The mean age of the patients in normal stimulation was 31.25 years and in prolonged stimulation was 33.11 years. Around 34 patients (403 oocytes) were analyzed in normal stimulation and 32 patients (303 oocytes) were analyzed in prolonged stimulation. Type of trigger, gonadotropin used, and the dosage were not considered.
Result: The oocyte maturation rate, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, day 3 good embryo rate, and day 5 blastocyst rate of normal stimulation are 76, 82, 76, 61, and 39%, respectively. The oocytes with single, double, and multiple defects of normal stimulation are 23, 55, and 22%, respectively. The oocyte maturation rate, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, day 3 good embryo rate, and day 5 blastocyst rate of prolonged stimulation are 76, 84, 76, 64, and 30%, respectively. The oocytes with single, double, and multiple defects of normal stimulation are 6, 41, and 77%, respectively.
The p-value for the oocyte maturation rate was 0.032535731 and the p-value for day 5 blastocyst rate was 0.003925882.
Conclusion: Prolonged stimulation is associated with oocyte maturation rate, oocyte morphology, and day 5 blastocyst rate.
World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, 5th edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
Schiewe MC An effective, simplified, and practical approach to intracytoplasmic sperm injection at multiple IVF centers. J Assist Reprod Genet 13(3):238–245. DOI: 10.1007/BF02065943.
Fancsovits P, Tóthné ZG, Murber Á, et al. Correlation between first polar body morphology and further embryo development. Biologia Futura 2006;57(3):331–338. DOI: 10.1556/ABiol.57.2006.3.7.
Finlayson C, Johnson E, Chen D et al. Proceedings of the Working Group Session on fertility preservation for individuals with gender and sex diversity. Transgender Health 2016;1(1):99–107. DOI: 10.1089/trgh.2016.0008.
Neto FT, Bach PV, Najari BB, et al. Spermatogenesis in humans and its affecting factors. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2016;59:10–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.04.009.
Sánchez F, Smitz J. Molecular control of oogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta 2012;1822(12):1896–1912. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2012.05.013.
Tal R, Seifer DB. Ovarian reserve testing: A user's guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217(2):129–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.027.
Rao KA. Principle and Practice of Assisted Reproductive Technology, 1st edition. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publication; 2014.
Talwar P. Jaypee's Video Atlas of Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Clinical Embryology, 1st edition. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publication; 2014. p. 406.
Taheri F, Alemzadeh Mehrizi A, Khalili MA, et al. The influence of ovarian hyperstimulation drugs on morphometry and morphology of human oocytes in ICSI program. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2018;57(2):205–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2018.02.007.
Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, et al. Prognostic value of first polar body morphology on fertilization rate and embryo quality in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Human Reprod 2000;15(2):427–430. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.2.427.
Yu-Chieh Yang, Yi-Ping Li, Song-Po Pan, et al. The different impact of stimulation duration on oocyte maturation and pregnancy outcome in fresh cycles with GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders and normal responders. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 58(4):471–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.05.007.
Tong J, Niu Y, Wan A, et al. Comparison of day 5 blastocyst with day 6 blastocyst: Evidence from NGS-based PGT-A results. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022;39(2):369–377. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02397-0.
Yerushalmi GM, Shavit T, Avraham S, et al. Day 5 vitrified blastocyst transfer versus day 6 vitrified blastocyst transfer in oocyte donation program. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):10715. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90238-y.
