Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017-2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System.
Jewett, Amy; Warner, Lee; Kawwass, Jennifer F; Mehta, Akanksha; Eisenberg, Michael L; Nangia, Ajay K; Dupree, James M; Honig, Stanton; Hotaling, James M; Kissin, Dmitry M.
Afiliación
  • Jewett A; Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Warner L; Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Kawwass JF; Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Mehta A; Emory Reproductive Center and Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Eisenberg ML; Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Nangia AK; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
  • Dupree JM; Department of Urology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
  • Honig S; Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  • Hotaling JM; Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
  • Kissin DM; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
F S Rep ; 3(2): 124-130, 2022 Jun.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35789711
Objective: To describe the prevalence and treatment characteristics of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles involving specific male factor infertility diagnoses in the United States. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of ART cycles in the National ART Surveillance System (NASS). Setting: Clinics that reported patient ART cycles performed in 2017 and 2018. Patients: Patients who visited an ART clinic and the cycles were reported in the NASS. The ART cycles included all autologous and donor cycles that used fresh or frozen embryos. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Analyses used new, detailed reporting of male factor infertility subcategories, treatment characteristics, and male partner demographics available in the NASS. Results: Among 399,573 cycles started with intent to transfer an embryo, 30.4% (n = 121,287) included a male factor infertility diagnosis as a reason for using ART. Of these, male factor only was reported in 16.5% of cycles, and both male and female factors were reported in 13.9% of cycles; 21.8% of male factor cycles had >1 male factor. Abnormal sperm parameters were the most commonly reported diagnoses (79.7%), followed by medical condition (5.3%) and genetic or chromosomal abnormalities (1.0%).Males aged ≤40 years comprised 59.6% of cycles with male factor infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was the primary method of fertilization (81.7%). Preimplantation genetic testing was used in 26.8%, and single embryo transfer was used in 66.8% of cycles with male factor infertility diagnosis. Conclusions: Male factor infertility is a substantial contributor to infertility treatments in the United States. Continued assessment of the prevalence and characteristics of ART cycles with male factor infertility may inform treatment options and improve ART outcomes. Future studies are necessary to further evaluate male factor infertility.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Idioma: En Revista: F S Rep Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Georgia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Idioma: En Revista: F S Rep Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Georgia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos