Assisted reproductive methods – current status and perspectives
Authors:
R. Chmel jr.; M. Čekal
Authors‘ workplace:
Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 2. LF UK a FN Motol, Praha, přednosta doc. MUDr. R. Chmel, Ph. D.
Published in:
Ceska Gynekol 2020; 85(4): 244-253
Category:
Review Article
Overview
Objective: Evaluation of the development of assisted reproduction methods and their success from the time of their origin to the present.
Design: Review article.
Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague.
Methods: Literature search using the Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed databases with keywords (assisted reproduction, in vitro fertilization, infertility, ICSI, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, OHSS, uterine transplantation) and analysis of articles published in impact and reviewed journals.
Results: At present children born using assisted reproduction methods are not considered as a miracle of modern medicine, but as a more difficult way of human reproduction. Reproductive medicine helps to fulfill the desires of infertile couples for their own child and thus improve the quality of their life. Since its introduction into clinical practice it has made extraordinary progress. Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe, thanks to systematic scientific research and clinical work, contributed to the birth of the first „test tube“ baby in 1978. Edwards received the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his discoveries in the field of assisted reproduction. The first child of assisted reproduction in the Czech Republic was born in 1982 in Brno. In 1986, the world‘s first cryoembryotransfer was performed. 1990 was the beginning of preimplantation genetic examination. In 1992, the first pregnancy was achieved using intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The work of specialists in reproductive medicine results in more than 8 million births worldwide.
Conclusion: Despite the fact that around 4000 children are born in the Czech Republic each year using assisted reproduction methods, its methods are rejected by part of the society. Assisted reproduction brings a number of controversies, but the spread of information smog around it should not suppress a rational view of the professional and general public. Indications for assisted reproduction vary, often are on the male side, but the age of the infertile woman is the most important determinant of the success of the process. The question is whether the continuous improvement of medical technologies and scientific discoveries threatens to inadequate manipulation of human gametes or embryos. The society should monitor these controversial aspects through its legislative and control mechanisms and ensure that these methods are not misused for other than strictly medical purposes.
Keywords:
assisted reproduction – In vitro fertilization – IVF – infertility – ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome – OHSS – uterine transplantation
Sources
1. Asistovaná reprodukce v České republice 2017. ÚZIS ČR, dostupné z https://www.uzis.cz/res/f/008274/asistreprodukce2017.pdf. ISBN 978-80-7472-182-3.
2. Biggers, JD. IVF and embryo transfer: historical origin and development. Reprod Biomed Online, 2012, 25, 2, p. 118–127.
3. Brinsden, PR. Thirty years of IVF: the legacy of Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. Hum Fertil (Camb), 2009, 12, 3, p. 137–143.
4. Bunge, RG., Keettel, WC., Sherman, JK. Clinical use of frozen semen: report of four cases. Fertil Steril, 1954, 5, 6, p. 520–529.
5. Cohen, J., Elsner, C., Kort, H., et al. Impairment of the hatching process following IVF in the human and improvement of implantation by assisting hatching using micromanipulation. Hum Reprod, 1990, 5, 1, p. 7–13.
6. Craciunas, L., Tsampras, N., Raine-Fenning, N., et al. Intrauterine administration of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018, 20, 10: CD011537. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011537.pub3.
7. de La Rochebrochard, E., Quelen, C., Peikrishvili, R., et al. Long-term outcome of parenthood project during in vitro fertilization and after discontinuation of unsuccessful in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 2009, 92, 1, p. 149–156.
8. Donfack, NJ., Alves, KA., Araújo, VR., et al. Expectations and limitations of ovarian tissue transplantation. Zygote, 2017, 25, 4, p. 391–403.
9. Donnez, J., Squifflet, J., Jadoul, P., et al. Pregnancy and live birth after autotransplantation of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue in a patient with metastatic disease undergoing chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95, 5, p. 1787.e1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.041.
10. Ernst, E., Bergholdt, S., Jørgensen, JS., Andersen, CY. The first woman to give birth to two children following transplantation of frozen/thawed ovarian tissue. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25, 5, p. 1280–1281.
11. European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM); European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge, C., et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod, 2017, 1, 32, 10, p. 1957–1973.
12. Garcia, JE., Jones, GS., Wright, GL. Jr. Prediction of the time of ovulation. Fertil Steril, 1981, 36, 3, p. 308–315.
13. Golan, A., Weissman, A. Symposium: Update on prediction and management of OHSS. A modern classification of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online, 2009, 19, 1, p. 28–32.
14. Gunnala, V., Reichman, DE., Meyer, L., et al. Beyond the American Society for Reproductive Medicine transfer guidelines: how many cleavage-stage embryos are safe to transfer in women ≥43 years old? Fertil Steril, 2014, 102, 6, p. 1626–1632.
15. Gurunath, S., Pandian, Z., Anderson, AR., et al. Defining infertility – a systematic review of prevalence studies. Human Reprod Update, 2011, 17, 5, p. 575–588.
16. Handyside, AH. ‚Designer babies‘ almost thirty years on. Reproduction, 2018, 156, 1, p. 75–79.
17. Harper, JC., Schatten, G. Are we ready for genome editing in human embryos for clinical purposes? Eur J Med Genet, 2019, 62, 8, p. 103682. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.103682.
18. Hořejší, J. Congenital developmental defects of derivates of müllerian ducts. Endocr Dev, 2012, 22, p. 251–270.
19. Humaidan, P., Nelson, SM., Devroey, P., et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: review and new classification criteria for reporting in clinical trials. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31, 9, p. 1997–2004.
20. Chen, C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet, 1986, 19, 1, 8486, p. 884–886.
21. Chmel, R., Novackova, M., Janousek, L., et al. Revaluation and lessons learned from the first 9 cases of a Czech uterus transplantation trial: Four deceased donor and 5 living donor uterus transplantations. Am J Transplant, 2019, 19, 3, p. 855–864.
22. Jones, HW. Jr. IVF: past and future. Reprod Biomed Online, 2003, 6, 3, p. 375–381.
23. Kirby, T. Robert Edwards: Nobel Prize for father of in-vitro fertilisation. Lancet, 2010, 376, 9749, p. 1293. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(10)61903-4.
24. Lane, M., Gardner, DK. Embryo culture medium: which is the best? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2007, 21, 1, p. 83–100.
25. Lenz, S., Lauritsen, JG. Ultrasonically guided percutaneous aspiration of human follicles under local anesthesia: a new method of collecting oocytes for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 1982, 38, 6, p. 673–677.
26. Loutradi, KE., Kolibianakis, EM., Venetis, CA., et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril, 2008, 90, 1, p. 186–193.
27. Makrakis, E., Angeli, I., Agapitou, K., et al. Laser versus mechanical assisted hatching: a prospective study of clinical outcomes. Fertil Steril, 2006, 86, 6, p. 1596–1600.
28. Malizia, BA., Hacker, MR., Penzias, AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med, 2009, 15, 360, 3, p. 236–243.
29. Matorras, R., Mendoza, R., Expósito, A., RodriguezEscudero, FJ. Influence of the time interval between embryo catheter loading and discharging on the success of IVF. Hum Reprod, 2004, 19, 9, p. 2027–2030.
30. Niederberger, C., Pellicer, A., Cohen, J., et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril, 2018, 15, 110, 2, p. 185–324.
31. Ombelet, W., Cooke, I., Dyer, S., et al. Infertility and the provision of infertility medical services in developing countries. Hum Reprod Update, 2008, 14, 6, p. 605–621.
32. Ory, S. The American octuplet experience: a transformative event. Fertil Steril, 2010, 93, 2, p. 337–338.
33. Palermo, G., Joris, H., Devroey, P., Van Steirteghem, AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet, 1992, 4, 340, 8810, p. 17–18.
34. Paulson, RJ. How do we decide how many embryos are safe for transfer? Fertil Steril, 2014, 102, 6, p. 1565–1566. doi: 10.1016/j. fertnstert.2014.10.030.
35. Pilka, L., Travnik, P., Dvorak, M., et al. Delivery after intrauterine embryo transfer obtained by fertilization and oocyte culture in vitro. Ces Gynek, 1985, 50, 7, s. 452–459.
36. Pope, CS., Cook, EK., Arny, M., et al. Influence of embryo transfer depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril, 2004, 81, 1, p. 51–58.
37. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Performing the embryo transfer: a guideline. Fertil Steril, 2017, 107, p. 882–896.
38. Shapiro, BS., Daneshmand, ST., Garner, FC., et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril, 2011, 96, 2, p. 344–348.
39. Shufaro, Y., Schenker, JG. Cryopreservation of human genetic material. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2010, 1205, p. 220–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05651.x.
40. Schochow, M., Rubeis, G., Büchner-Mögling, G., et al. Social freezing in medical practice. Experiences and attitudes of gynecologists in Germany. Sci Eng Ethics, 2018, 24, 5, p. 1483–1492.
41. Singh, R., Sinclair, KD. Metabolomics: approaches to assessing oocyte and embryo quality. Theriogenology, 2007, 1, 68, p. S56–62.
42. Sutcliffe, AG., Ludwig, M. Outcome of assisted reproduction. Lancet, 2007, 28, 370, 9584, p. 351–359.
43. Šťastná, A., Kocourková, J., Šídlo, L. Reprodukční stárnutí v Česku v kontextu Evropy. Cas Lek Ces, 2019, 158, 3–4, s. 126–132.
44. Tesarik, J., Pilka, L., Dvorak, M., Travnik, P. Oocyte recovery, in vitro insemination, and transfer into the oviduct after its microsurgical repair at a single laparotomy. Fertil Steril, 1983, 39, 4, p. 472–475.
45. Trounson, AO., Leeton, JF., Wood, C., et al. Pregnancies in humans by fertilization in vitro and embryo transfer in the controlled ovulatory cycle. Science, 1981, 8, 212, 4495, p. 681–682.
46. Vajta, G., Rienzi, L., Cobo, A., et al. Embryo culture: can we perform better than nature? Reprod Biomed Online, 2010, 20, 4, p. 453–469.
47. van Rooij, IA., Bancsi, LF., Broekmans, FJ., et al. Women older than 40 years of age and those with elevated follicle-stimulating hormone levels differ in poor response rate and embryo quality in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 2003, 79, 3, p. 482–488.
48. Walsh, DJ., Walsh, AP. Setting the stage for novel public policy and fiscal impact studies regarding the economics of in vitro fertilisation: An introduction. J Exp Clin Assist Reprod, 2010, 15, 7, p. 1.
49. Zbořilová, B., Oborná, I., Tkadlec, E., et al. Ovlivňuje použití transferového média EmbryoGlue úspěšnost embryotransferu? Čes Gynek, 2018, 83, 3, s. 177–181.
50. Zhao, Y., Brezina, P., Hsu, CC., et al. In vitro fertilization: four decades of reflections and promises. Biochim Biophys Acta, 2011, 1810, 9, p. 843–852.
Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineArticle was published in
Czech Gynaecology
2020 Issue 4
Most read in this issue
- Cesarean scar defect – manifestation, diagnostics, treatment
- What next in cervical cancer screening?
- Benefits of exercise in the prenatal and postnatal period
- Assisted reproductive methods – current status and perspectives