Anyone else see this article about ICSI? (MFI, birth defects mentioned)

Anyone else see this article about ICSI? (MFI, birth defects mentioned)

Joined: August 17th, 2011, 2:17 pm

May 7th, 2012, 9:13 pm #1

Hello Women,

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.

Article:http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c1 ... 14d06bb202

Thanks!
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 7th, 2012, 9:20 pm #2

With ICSI the pros far outway the cons.
Quote
Share

Joined: August 18th, 2010, 6:45 pm

May 7th, 2012, 9:24 pm #3

Hello Women,

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.

Article:http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c1 ... 14d06bb202

Thanks!
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... t=abstract

You can read the full text by clicking the link at the bottom.

I think the mainstream media is trying to spin this a bit too negatively but its is worth discussing with your doctor if you are concerned.

FWIW, I cycled at several different clinics. One (the academic one) was decidedly against ICSI when there is no male factor issue and when they don't anticipate fertilization issues.

Quote
Like
Share

Antonialisa
Antonialisa

May 7th, 2012, 9:27 pm #4

Hello Women,

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.

Article:http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c1 ... 14d06bb202

Thanks!
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.
Quote
Share

Joined: August 17th, 2011, 2:17 pm

May 7th, 2012, 10:47 pm #5

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... t=abstract

You can read the full text by clicking the link at the bottom.

I think the mainstream media is trying to spin this a bit too negatively but its is worth discussing with your doctor if you are concerned.

FWIW, I cycled at several different clinics. One (the academic one) was decidedly against ICSI when there is no male factor issue and when they don't anticipate fertilization issues.
Thanks, Seymo. That's interesting what your previous RE said. So you must have been OK signing that SG waiver about ICSI.

You've got your transfer coming up kind of soon, eh? I'm thinking of you and sending good wishes!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 17th, 2011, 2:17 pm

May 7th, 2012, 10:51 pm #6

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.
I appreciate your insights and thoughts.

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!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 17th, 2011, 2:17 pm

May 7th, 2012, 10:52 pm #7

With ICSI the pros far outway the cons.
Thanks! n/t
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 18th, 2010, 6:45 pm

May 8th, 2012, 2:28 am #8

Thanks, Seymo. That's interesting what your previous RE said. So you must have been OK signing that SG waiver about ICSI.

You've got your transfer coming up kind of soon, eh? I'm thinking of you and sending good wishes!
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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 10th, 2008, 6:33 pm

May 8th, 2012, 3:12 am #9

Hello Women,

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.

Article:http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c1 ... 14d06bb202

Thanks!
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!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2008, 2:53 am

May 8th, 2012, 4:54 am #10

Hello Women,

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.

Article:http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c1 ... 14d06bb202

Thanks!
Hi,
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
Quote
Like
Share