So an Australian study was released Saturday that studied whether there was an increased incidence of birth defects from fertility treatments. The study concluded that IVF alone did not increase the chances of birth defects, but when ICSI was used, birth defects were more common.
I'm using Shady Grove, will have our transfer at the end of the month, and they don't let you opt out of ICSI if you are in the shared risk program, which we are.
My feelings are mixed on this. I was alarmed at first, but after having read the article again carefully, I'm thinking again. We do not have male factor infertility, and the article suggests that it's possible that the higher incidence of birth defects is caused by injecting less-then-perfect sperm into the egg, meaning that it's the sperm quality that's causing the defect, not the procedure itself. So perhaps injecting healthy sperm into the egg is fine. This is possibly the case, but certainly not guaranteed.
I've already requested to speak with my dr. about it, but I'd love to get you thoughts on this, too. Does this article this make you wary of ICSI? Or do you think it's less of a concern if the sperm is healthy?
Plus just wanted to pass on in case it's interesting or relevant for others.
that they insisted on ICSI but my fert rates have never been good so the benefits out weigh the risks for me. Which in the case of this study, the cause of the slight increase in BD rates are still not all that clear.
Re: Anyone else see this article about ICSI? (MFI, birth defects mentioned)
May 7 2012, 5:27 PM
I can't speak to the study, but when DH and I met Dr. Ch.eck, he mentioned that he would not counsel ICSI for us because he believes that it is better for the best sperm to find and penetrate the egg, not to have the embryologist select a less-than-perfect sperm and inject it directly. (My DH has good sperm volume so this may be different for others).
My local RE says that ICSI increases fertilization rates. This is probably why clinics like it.
There may be an option to give eggs a chance to fertilize on their own, but after some period of time determined by the embryologist, do ICSI if they still haven't fertilized. You could ask your RE if this option is available.
Yeah, I'm sure that's why SG insists on it for their shared risk program; it increases the chance of fertilization, so they fulfill their guarantee sooner rather than later. (which I don't begrudge them as long as it's safe.)
And I will bring that idea up with my doc, thanks!
yes, did not what to mention but sent to friend in the RE business
May 7 2012, 11:12 PM
and she was ticked. She said it was inflammatory. My friend is super smart and her dad is a doctor. She is good with numbers and said, if it was as the article put it there would be a HUGE amount of IVF conceived people who had defects. She said if you really look at the numbers it's low. It ticked her off!
I'm in Australia and saw something in the paper about ICSI on the weekend. We used ICSI and have a perfect boy. I don't know anything about their sample group as well we cycled in Kuala Lumpur.
The numbers were low on birth defects. Truly I wouldn't worry about it, best, THK
Yeah, this has thrown patients on another forum . . . (kids ment)
May 8 2012, 12:59 PM
I'm on for a loop, too. It's the support forum for patients of CRM Zlin in the Czech Republic, and since their low stim methods usually yield smaller numbers of eggs than U.S. cycles, ICSI is the norm. My fert report said they used ICSI (and I didn't know this till after) even though I used DS. Anyway, I mentioned PICSI a few months ago, a process that's supposed to more closely emulate the natural process of sperm traveling from the vagina to fertilize an egg, which in theory should mitigate some of the risk. One poster really pooh-poohed it, though, and said few clinics are actually using it, and in fact I could find little evidence that clinics really are. It's not an issue for me; I won't be having more kids, and mine appear to be healthy, but I wish there were more information out there. Maggie (in VA)