Skip Navigation


Human Reproduction Update Advance Access originally published online on August 16, 2008
Human Reproduction Update 2008 14(6):593-604; doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn032
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
14/6/593    most recent
dmn032v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nyboe Andersen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Loft, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nyboe Andersen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Loft, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Trends in the use of intracytoplasmatic sperm injection marked variability between countries

Anders Nyboe Andersen1, Elisabeth Carlsen and Anne Loft

The Fertility Clinic, section 4071, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

1 Correspondence address. Tel: +45-35451315; Fax: +45-35454946; E-mail: anders.nyboe.andersen{at}rh.regionh.dk


   Abstract
TOP
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
BACKGROUND: ICSI is used increasingly often compared with standard IVF. The aim of the present study was to analyse the changes in the use of ICSI, and discuss possible causes and consequences.

METHODS: Data from National and Regional registers were analysed for trends in the use of ICSI and indications for assisted reproductive technology (ART).

RESULTS: The use of ICSI increased from 39.6% of ART cycles in 1997 to 58.9% in 2004 (USA 57.5%, Australia/New Zealand 58.6%, Europe 59.3%). The Nordic countries, the Netherlands and the UK used ICSI to a low extent (40.0–44.3%), whereas Austria, Belgium and Germany (68.5–72.9%) and the southern European countries like Greece, Italy and Spain used ICSI frequently (66.0–81.2%). The marked increase in the proportion of ICSI cycles seems primarily due to an increased use in couples classified as having mixed causes of infertility, unexplained infertility and advanced age together with a relative decline in tubal factor infertility. An absolute increase in the prevalence of couples with impairment in semen quality remains a possibility.

CONCLUSIONS: ICSI is used increasingly, but huge differences exist between countries within Europe. It is not possible to determine specific factors that explain the differences. As ICSI does not give higher pregnancy rates than IVF in couples without male factors, and as it adds additional costs, infertile couples and society may benefit from a less frequent use of ICSI in some countries.

Key words: ICSI / trends over time / indications / national registers


   Introduction
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
After the introduction of ICSI (Palermo et al., 1992Go), this technique was rapidly integrated into the routine clinical use of fertility clinics offering assisted reproductive technology (ART) throughout the world. During recent years, ICSI has become the most frequently used method for fertilization, and in 2004 ICSI was used in nearly 60% of all reported ART cycles in Australia and New Zealand, Europe and the USA (Wang et al., 2006Go; Wright et al., 2007Go; ESHRE, 2008Go). In a recent publication of trends in the use of ICSI in the USA, it was shown that from 1995 to 2004 the proportion of cycles where ICSI was used increased from 11 to 57.5%. From 1999 to 2004, the percentage of ICSI cycles increased from 40 to 57.3%, while the percentage of infertility attributed to a male factor remained stable in same period. Additionally, it was shown that non-medically related factors were related to the use of ICSI, as states with insurance coverage had a higher ratio of ICSI use to diagnosis of male-factor infertility than did states without insurance coverage (Jain and Gupta, 2007Go). Supporting that the use of ICSI may be related to non-medically related causes is the finding that within Europe the use of ICSI in 2004 ranged more that two-fold between countries (ESHRE, 2008Go).

In the early years of ICSI during the 1990’s, the increase in the use of ICSI is likely to be mainly explained by the fact that fertility clinics had to establish the technique in their laboratories, and incorporate it in the clinical management. Additionally, in some countries ICSI was not initially allowed, as in Norway where it was not legally accepted before January 1996. However, data from Germany shows that already from 1997 all 70 clinics that reported to the national ART register also offered ICSI (Felberbaum et al., 2007Go). It is therefore unlikely that the shift towards ICSI during recent years is related to implementation of the technique or legislation.

As practized presently the pregnancy rates per oocyte retrieval or embryo transfer using ICSI versus IVF are comparable as documented by data from national ART registers both in Europe (ESHRE, 2008Go), the US (Wright et al., 2007Go) and Australia and New Zealand (Wang et al., 2007Go). It could therefore be argued that the way ICSI is practized today represents an appropriate medical adaptation and development to the benefit of the infertile couples. However, the continuous rise in the use of ICSI as well as the huge differences in the utilization of ICSI between countries in the same region could suggest, that ICSI may be too extensively used for reasons that are not determined by good medical evidence.

The purpose of the present review is to analyse the trends in the use of ICSI in different regions and countries and to discuss possible reasons for the differences and appropriateness of this development.


   Materials and Methods
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
We compiled data from the following Western national registers, either published in journals, reports or available on the web site of the registers:

The European IVF-monitoring programme (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Data from 1997–2004 for most European Countries are published in Human Reproduction (ESHRE 2001aGo, bGo, 2002Go, 2004Go, 2005Go, 2006Go, 2007Go, 2008Go).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reports from 1995 to 2004 are available from www.cdc.gov/ART/ARTReports.htm. Trends in ICSI data have been analysed by Jain and Gupta and published in New England Journal of Medicine (Jain and Gupta, 2007Go).
Australian and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database (ANZARD). Data from 1997–2004 are available from www.npsu.unsw.edu.au. The latest annual reports are by Wang et al. (2006)Go and Wang et al. (2007)Go.
The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART). A world collaborative report on in vitro fertilization with data from 2000, is published in Fertility Sterility, by Adamson et al. (2006)Go.
The Canadian ART Register. Results from 2001-2004 published in Fertility Sterility (Gunby and Daya, 2005Go, 2006Go, 2007Go; Gunby et al., 2007Go).


   Results
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
Trends in the use of ICSI and IVF

Table I shows National Register data on the number of ART cycles and the proportion of these cycles that has been reported as ICSI cycles from Europe, selected European countries, selected regions within Europe as well as from Canada, the USA and Australia and New Zealand. Data from other regions like the Middle East, Latin America, Japan and Korea are from the latest available ‘World Report’.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table I. Development in the use of ICSI versus IVF in different countries and regions.

 
It appears from Table I that the percentages of fresh ART cycles where ICSI was performed were almost identical within the three major regions of Europe, North America and Australia and New Zealand in 2004, which is the most recent year where comparable data are available. European clinics made 281 864 fresh non-donor cycles and 59.3% of these were ICSI. In the USA, the corresponding figures were 89 533 cycles and 57.5% were ICSI and in Australia and New Zealand the figures were 19 943 cycles and 58.6% were ICSI. Summarizing the data (391 340 cycles) from these three regions, where the far majority of ART cycles in the World were recorded, ICSI was used in 58.9% of the cycles. The corresponding figures in 1997 were 239 155 ART cycles and 39.6% of these were ICSI. Using year as a linear variable the annual odds ratio for ICSI versus IVF treatment was 1.113 (95% CI: 1.112–1.115) and the odds ratio was 0.457 (95% CI: 0.453–0.462) for ICSI in 1997 versus 2004. During the 8 years of observations, the percentage of ICSI cycles increased by an absolute 19.3%.

As can also bee seen from Table I, major differences are present between countries outside the three regions. Data from year 2000 showed the following percentages of ICSI cycles: Middle East 89.2%, Latin America 70.0%, Japan 48.4% and Korea 30.0%.

Within Europe major differences also exist. In 2004, The Netherlands (40.0%), the Nordic countries (44.3%) and the UK (43.8%) could all be considered to have a rather low utilization of ICSI. In contrast other countries had a high use of ICSI: Austria (72.9%), Belgium (70.6%), Germany (68.5%), Hungary (73.5%), Poland (84.3%), and the Southern European region with an average of 73.9% (Greece 66.0%, Italy 69.2%, Portugal 66.0% and Spain 81.2%).

One of the quality aspects of registers is whether the register includes data from all clinics in the country as in Australia and New Zealand and the USA. In 1997 and 2004, the following European countries had National Registers that covered all ART cycles (Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). Using data only from these countries a total of 103.677 cycles of which 34.6% were ICSI were done in 1997. The corresponding figures for 2004 were 133.356 cycles with 49.7% ICSI.

Data on the most recent trends are available from a few countries from the period 2005 to 2007. In the UK, the percentage of ICSI was 42.8% (41.334 ART cycles) in 2005 and this increased to 47.2% (42.334 ART cycles) in 2006 (HFEA, 2006Go). In Denmark, the percentage increased to 44.2% (9.541 ART cycles) in 2005, 44.6% (9.936 ART cycles) in 2006 and to 46.0% (10.771 ART cycles) in 2007 (Danish Fertility Society at www.fertilitetsselskab.dk). In Australia and New Zealand, the percentage of ICSI remained unchanged and was 58.5% in 2005 (Wang et al. 2007Go). In Germany, the percentage of ICSI was 68.7% (38.382 ART cycles) in 2005 and increased to 70.4% (39.942 ART cycles) in 2006 (Felberbaum et al., 2007Go). In the USA, the proportion of ICSI cycles increased to 59.6% (97.442 cycles) in 2005 (CDC, 2007Go).

Based on the European data, the percentage of IVF oocyte collections that resulted in embryo transfer increased by 3.9% from 84.3% in 1997, to 86.7% in 2001 and to 88.2% in 2004. The corresponding figures for ICSI remained unchanged during the years (91.7% in 1997; 92.6% in 2001 and 91.2% in 2004). The pregnancy rates per embryo transfer increased during the period (1997: IVF 26.1%, ICSI 26.4%; 2001: IVF 29.0%, ICSI 28.3%; 2004: IVF 30.1%, ICSI 29.8%).

In Australia and New Zealand, the ‘viable pregnancy rate’ per oocyte collection in 1997 was 13.3% after IVF and 14.7% after ICSI. In 2004, the delivery rate per cycle was 21.0% after IVF and 20.4% after ICSI.

Trends in the indications for ART

Table II presents data on the indications for ART (IVF and ICSI) in the period from 1997 to 2004 as recorded in five countries, where data on indications over time have been found. It has to be noted that different classification systems are used in different countries regarding the indications for ART treatments. Comparisons between countries should therefore be done cautiously, but all registers where data have been published, seem to record the subgroup with male factor alone, whereas mixed factors/combined factors may also include couples with multiple female factors.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table II. The percentage of ART treated couples diagnoses where ICSI may be indicated: (a) male-factor alone or (b) male factor combined with other causes or (c) multiple causes, which may or may not include male factors.

 
Comparing the 1997 and the 2004 data the percentage of diagnosis that included a male factor or ‘mixed factor’ increased from 43 to 47% in Australia and New Zealand, from 28 to 37% in Denmark and from 41 to 47% in Finland. In the UK and the US data could be followed for a 5 years period from 2000 to 2004. It is seen in Table II that the percentage of male-related diagnosis declined from 47% in 2000 to 44% in 2004 in the UK, whereas an increase from 40 to 42% was observed in the USA. As also seen in Table II, there was no consistent trend in the development of couples with a male factor alone diagnosis as an indication for ART.

Data on trends in indications for ART treatment from those countries/regions where ICSI is extensively used like the Middle East, Latin America and some European countries like Spain are to our knowledge not published.

The increase in the proportion of cycles that use ICSI could be caused by a reduction in the proportion of treatments due to other causes of infertility. Recent data from the UK (HFEA, 2006Go) show that the tubal factor infertility alone decline from 19.1% in 2000 to 15.3% in 2006. Data from Denmark show that the tubal factor was the indication for 43.3% of treatments in 1997 and this decreased to only 21.0% in 2004 (Danish National Board of Health at www.sst.dk). In Finland, the proportion of couples treated for tubal infertility decreased from 22% in 1995 to 16% in 2000, and down to 9% in 2004 (Terava et al., 2008Go). In Australia and New Zealand, tubal infertility accounted for 17.7% of all ART treatments in 1996, and this declined to 12.4% in 2001 and to 7.3% in 2005 (Dean and Sullivan, 2003Go; Wang et al., 2006Go).

In contrast to the decline in tubal factor infertility there has been an increase in couples with unexplained infertility. In the UK, unexplained infertility accounted for 17.5% in 2000 and this increased to 23.1% in 2006 (HFEA, 2006Go). In Finland, unexplained infertility increased from 13% in 1995 to 22% in 2004 (Terava et al., 2008Go). In Denmark, unexplained infertility accounted for 14% of the diagnosis in 1997 and 15% in 2004. In Australia and New Zealand, unexplained infertility accounted for around 15% in 1997 (Hurst et al., 1999Go) and 17.3% in 2005 (Wang et al., 2007Go).

Trends in indications for ICSI

Combining the data from Table I and II, it is seen that the proportion of male-related diagnosis in couples treated with ART (37–47% in 2004) is less than the percentage of couples treated with ICSI (58.9% in 2004). It is thus clear that ICSI is also used to a large extent on other indications than those that are related to male infertility. Unfortunately, very limited National Register data are available on the indications for the subpopulation treated with ICSI. However, the comprehensive register from Australia and New Zealand provide detailed information on causes of infertility in relation to use of IVF versus ICSI (Table III). These data from 2004 show that among ICSI-treated couples only 27.6% were treated due to a male factor alone, whereas 38.4% had multiple causes and 11.7% had unexplained infertility as indication for the ICSI treatment. In the US data from 2005 showed that among the 58.079 ICSI cycles 50.4% involved male-factor infertility, whereas 49.6% did not include any male-factor diagnosis as an indication (CDC, 2007Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table III. ART treatment cycles recorded by cause of infertility, IVF and ICSI in Australia and New Zealand, 2004.

 
Use of ICSI in relation to age

Data from Australia and New Zealand show that in 2005, ICSI was used increasingly often with increasing female age. In all 30–34 years old couples the percentage of ICSI cycles was 54.5%, but this increased to 68.5% in all couples with female age ≥40 years (Wang et al., 2007Go). Supporting a link between advanced female age and use of ICSI are also found in data from the USA in 2004 where 29.2% of couples without a male-factor diagnosis received ICSI when the female age was <35 years, whereas this increased to 37.9% in the age group 41–42 years and to 39.8% in the age group >42 years (Wright et al., 2007Go).

Similar data are not available from Europe, but the mean proportion of women ≥40 years among the IVF-treated couples was 14.7% in 2004, whereas the corresponding figure for ICSI-treated women was 12.5% (ESHRE, 2008Go). The highest proportion of both IVF and ICSI-treated women that were ≥40 years of age was found in the Southern European countries of Greece (IVF 21.0% and ICSI 21.8% ≥40 years) and Italy (IVF 21.0% and ICSI 22.4% ≥40 years).


   Discussion
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusions
 References
 
Trends in the use of ICSI

The results extend those obtained from the USA by Jain and Gupta (2007)Go by showing that the trend observed in the USA has also occurred in Europe and in Australia/New Zealand. Interestingly, ICSI is used in a similar proportion of couples in the three regions of Australia and New Zealand, Europe and the USA as around 60% of all ART cycles now use this technology for fertilization. The trend observed in the period from 1997 to 2004 seems to continue from 2005 onwards, even though with a lower rate. Very high ICSI rates were found in other regions like Latin America (70.0%) and the Middle East (89.2%) and within Europe 2-fold differences were found in the rates of ICSI, being below 40% in Finland and Russia and >80% in Spain. Even neighbouring countries like Belgium (ICSI 70.6%) and the Netherlands (ICSI 40.0%) use ICSI very differently. The overall trend is that the use of ICSI is rather low in the Northern and high in the Southern European countries. In general, each country has its own consistent profile, as those countries that have a high utilization of ICSI have had this throughout the entire period of recording.

The registers from Australia and New Zealand and the USA include all clinics. For the period studied (1997–2004) only nine European countries reported register data that covered all treatments (ESHRE, 2001aGo, bGo; ESHRE, 2008Go). If the results are analysed separately from these nine countries the use of ICSI has increased from 34.6 to 49.7%. These countries include the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, France and the UK that all use ICSI to a low, moderate degree. The European data should therefore be interpreted with caution, as the available National data from some of the countries where ICSI is most frequently used, only covers a proportion of the treatments.

The rise in the use of ICSI has been temporarily associated with an increase in overall pregnancy rates for ART. Only the European data can be analysed separately for IVF versus ICSI during the selected period from 1997 to 2004, where the pregnancy rates per transfer increased from 26 to 30% after both IVF and ICSI (ESHRE, 2001aGo; ESHRE 2008Go). This increase occurred despite a decrease in the number of embryos transferred during a time period, but the increase can evidently be explained by several factors. Another potentially beneficial effect of the increased use of ICSI could be that the number of oocyte retrievals with IVF that resulted in embryo transfer in Europe increased from 84.3% in 1997, to 86.7% in 2001 and to 88.2% in 2004.

In order to explain the observed trends, the inadequacy of the majority of National ART Registers becomes evident as the causes of infertility of the ART-treated couples are often not published at all and when published, the classifications do not follow an international consensus. Additionally, biases regarding classification of indications may occur. One example is that re-imbursement of ICSI was only possible in Germany if the sperm quality assessment revealed a marked impairment (personal communication). Similar, but unrecognized factors may be operating in other countries. With these reservations, the following sections discuss possible explanations for the trend over time and the differences between countries.

Possible reasons why the use of ICSI has increased—declining sperm quality

Based on the National Register data there is an increase, although minor, in the percentage of couples with male infertility that are treated with ART, and it is a possibility that an increased number of couples seek treatment due to a real decline in male fertility. Although the issue is still controversial (Jouannet et al., 2001Go), several studies have indicated that there has been a global decrease in sperm concentration during the past five to six decades (Carlsen et al., 1992Go; Irvine et al., 1996Go; Swan et al., 2000Go; Lackner et al., 2005Go; Sripada et al., 2007Go) with wide regional differences (Swan et al., 2000Go; Jørgensen et al., 2006Go) although other studies found no time trend in sperm concentration (Paulsen et al., 1996Go; Andoltz et al.,1999; Seo et al., 2000Go). Currently, the World Health Organisation defined lower limit of normal sperm concentration as 20 million/ml (WHO, 1999Go). However, studies have indicated that this value may be too low to consider as a normal sperm concentration, since men with sperm counts <40 million/ml have prolonged waiting time to pregnancy (Bonde et al., 1998aGo; Slama et al., 2002Go). The decline in semen quality appear to be birth cohort related with the birth cohorts born before 1960 having the highest sperm concentrations and the younger cohorts born around 1980 having the lowest sperm counts with mean sperm concentrations around 40 million/ml (Bonde et al., 1998bGo; Zorn et al., 1999Go; Andersen et al., 2000Go). It is estimated, that as many as 30% of young Danish men may have semen quality in a subfertile range (Skakkebæk et al., 2006Go). Indeed, the adverse trends in male reproductive health may have reached a ‘tipping point’, where the rising proportion of subfertile men is becoming significant (Andersson et al., 2008Go). The increasing use of ICSI may thus to some extend be caused by declining semen quality with more men in the subfertile range.

Another contributing factor to a possible decrease in male fertility is the postponed childbearing in most Western countries. As women tend to postpone conception, the mean age of fathers has also increased with a significantly larger proportion of men fathering a child in their 50’s (Plas et al., 2000Go; Kidd et al., 2001Go; Kühnert and Nieschlag, 2004Go; Lackner et al., 2005Go; ESHRE Capri Workshop Group, 2005Go). Age-related changes in spermatogenesis have been well described with decreasing semen volume, sperm motility and sperm morphology, whereas no consistent data have confirmed that sperm concentration also declines with advancing age (Kidd et al., 2001Go; Kühnert and Nieschlag, 2004Go; ESHRE Capri Workshop Group, 2005Go) even though declining trends in sperm concentration and total sperm counts have been described in some studies (Auger et al., 1995Go; Eskenazi et al., 2003Go). In a review of the literature, Kidd et al. (2001)Go found a decrease in semen volume of 3–22%, a decrease in sperm motility of 3–37% and a decrease in percent morphologically normal sperm of 4–18% when 50-year-old men were compared with 30-year-old men. These changes in semen quality were associated with relative decreases in pregnancy rates between 23 and 38% when controlling for female age. Furthermore, it has been shown that older men have increased sperm DNA damage, which may be a cause of infertility (Singh et al., 2003Go; Wyrobek et al., 2006Go; Schmid et al., 2007Go).

Another explanation for the increased use of ICSI could be a shift towards an increased use for mild and borderline male-factor infertility, although the data to support the use of ICSI for this indication are limited. Randomized controlled trials using parallel group comparison of ICSI versus IVF in couples with light to moderate male infertility are not available. However, studies have compared fertilization rates and embryo development after IVF and ICSI in sibling oocytes. These studies have found no significant differences in pregnancy rates using IVF versus ICSI fertilized oocytes in couples with mild / borderline sperm quality impairment defined as at least one abnormal semen parameter according to the WHO classification, even though there were significantly fewer complete fertilization failures of the oocytes exposed to ICSI (Plachot et al., 2002Go; van der Westerlaken et al., 2006Go). Tournaye (2002) compared the results of ICSI and two different IVF regimes with standard (0.2 million/ml spermatozoa) or high concentration (0.8 million/ml spermatozoa) in couple with moderate male infertility using sibling oocytes and found that fertilization rates were significantly lower with standard IVF compared with ICSI (37.4 versus 64.3%), but similar when high concentration IVF was used (59.6 versus 67.6%). Overall there were no significant differences in pregnancy rates. These data were included in a meta-analysis of eight RCTs comparing IVF and ICSI in sibling oocytes confirming higher fertilization rates with ICSI compared with conventional IVF but not in comparison to high concentration IVF (Tournaye et al., 2002Go).

One issue of concern is the lack of a general scientific consensus on how to define those couples with a mild to moderate impairment in semen quality that should be offered ICSI and not IVF.

Evaluation of sperm morphology by strict criteria have been used by some to predict the outcome after IVF (Kruger et al., 1988Go; Ombelet et al., 1995Go) and it has been shown that increased fertilization failure by IVF occurred when less than 5% of the sperm in the ejaculate had normal forms (review by Coetzee et al., 1998Go; Söderlund and Lundin, 2006Go). On the other hand Keegan et al. (2007)Go found that isolated teratozoospermia did not reduce fertilization in IVF compared with ICSI. The total number of motile sperm after sperm preparation has also been shown to predict the outcome after IVF (Rhemrev et al., 2001Go) and a count of 500,000 has been suggested as a cut-off value for IVF (Devroey et al., 1998) although others recommend a number of >1 million progressive motile sperm (Rhemrev et al., 2001Go).

In conclusion, a real decline in semen quality and a higher proportion of subfertile men, as well as increased paternal age could be a contributing factor to the rise in the use of ICSI. It could also be speculated that an increase in subtle changes in semen quality, which may not always be recorded as male infertility, has occurred. Lack of a general consensus on the degree of sperm quality impairment that would require ICSI versus IVF, could be a factor explaining some of the variability seen within countries.

Possible reasons why the use of ICSI has increased—declining tubal infertility

Tubal infertility is the classical indication for IVF rather than ICSI, and the data show that the proportion of couples with tubal infertility has been declining. The decline in tubal infertility has been quite pronounced with a reduction of more that 50% in less than a decade in Australia/New Zealand, Denmark and Finland. The reasons why tubal infertility may decrease as an indication for ART is beyond the scope of the present review, but it is fair to conclude that this may be another contributing factor explaining the changes seen in the distribution between IVF and ICSI during recent years.

Possible reasons why the use of ICSI is increased—non-male-factor infertility

As mentioned, National Register data on the indications for ART in general are very inadequately documented, and specific data on indications for those couples treated with ICSI are only published from Australia and New Zealand and the USA. However, as seen from Table II, the proportion of male-related diagnosis in couples treated with ART in the five countries ranged from 37–47% in 2004, and as the percentage of couples treated with ICSI was 58.9%, it is evident that ICSI is now used to a large extent for other indications than those related to male infertility. Data on specific indications for ICSI from Australia and New Zealand (Table III) confirmed that the main indications for ICSI in 2004 were mixed causes of infertility (38.4%) and unexplained infertility (11.7%), whereas 27.6% were due to male factors alone. In the USA, only 50.4% of all ICSI cycles in 2005 involved couples with a male factor (CDC, 2007Go).

Possible reasons why the use of ICSI is increased—advanced age

As found in the present analysis, data from Australia and New Zealand as well as from the USA show that ICSI is used increasingly often with increasing female age. Data from Australia and New Zealand show that in 2005, the use of ICSI was increased to 68.5% in all couples with female age ≥40 years (Wang et al., 2007Go). The data from the USA support the link between advanced female age and use of ICSI as the proportion of couples without a male-factor diagnosis that received ICSI increased from 29.2% when the female age was below 35 years, to 39.8% in the age group >42 years (Wright et al., 2007Go). In Europe, the overall use of IVF and ICSI has a similar age distribution (ESHRE, 2008Go), but detailed data linking both age, diagnosis and use of IVF versus ICSI are not available, so age and diagnosis can not be linked.

As documented in the UK (HFEA, 2006Go) more females of advanced reproductive age are presently being treated with ART, as a mirror of the changes in natural conception, where more and more women in the ‘Western World’ delay childbearing (Lampic et al., 2006Go). Female age has an effect on the diagnostic categories of infertility as shown by Maheshwari et al. (2008)Go who studied 7172 couples referred to the Aberdeen Fertility Centre. They found that among women with primary infertility twice as many women ≥35 years had unexplained infertility and less presented with ovulatory disturbances, compared with women aged <35 years. Indeed, unexplained infertility and advanced age may to some extent cover the same diagnosis, and in the USA the category diminished ovarian reserve is recorded as a separate diagnosis in the register during recent years (Wright et al., 2007Go). As shown in the present study, ICSI is often used in unexplained infertility, so the trend towards treatment of older women with ART (HFEA, 2006Go) could be another explanation for the shift towards more frequent use of ICSI, even though the available data do not allow solid conclusions to be drawn.

Possible reasons why the use of ICSI has increased—conclusions

It seems clear that the predominant indications for ICSI are now not severe impairment of semen quality, but rather mixed causes of infertility and unexplained infertility, and these account for most of the increased use of ICSI. Additionally, it is possible, although still not adequately documented, that age-related decline in oocyte quantity and quality may be an increasingly important non-male factor that contributes to the rising use of ICSI.

Differences in the use of ICSI between regions and countries—medical causes

Data that directly explains the huge differences between the utilization of ICSI between different countries is not available, but there could be a number of possible explanations. One of the reasons could be that intrauterine inseminations (IUI) are used to a varying degree. The indications for IUI are mainly unexplained subfertility, light to moderate male subfertility and mixed male and female causes, which are now also among the frequently used indications for ICSI. Miskry and Chapman (2002)Go analysed the use of IUI among fertility centres in Australia and New Zealand, and showed that instead of IUI almost one third of centres recommended ART as first line therapy in unexplained infertility. Whenever semen parameters were reduced, IUI was rarely considered.

In the recent update of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on fertility treatment in the UK couples with both unexplained infertility as well as patients with minor abnormalities in semen characteristics were recommended 6 cycles of IUI before entering ART (www.nice.org.uk). It should be noted, that in countries where national evidence based guidelines on treatment of infertility recommend 3 to 6 IUI cycles before ART, like Denmark (www.fertilitetsselskab.dk), The Netherlands (Hagen et al. 2005Go) and the UK (www.nice.org.uk), the use of ICSI is rather low. Unfortunately, the number of IUI cycles using husband semen is only reported from a number of countries, and the data available are likely to represent only part of the national activity (ESHRE, 2008Go). We can therefore only hypothesize that in those countries where the National guidelines recommend 3–6 cycles of IUI, more couples may be treated with IUI and around 25% will achieve a live birth (Khalil et al., 2001Go), and may thus not need treatment with ICSI.

Medical reasons for the differences between countries cannot be analysed as data on the specific indications are neither available for ART in general nor ICSI separately from the majority of European countries. It should be noted that the southern European countries of Greece and Italy have the largest proportion (21–22%) of women ≥40 years of age and this may contribute to their frequent use of ICSI. On the other hand the proportion in Spain is only 11%, but 80% of cycles are ICSI.

The conclusion is that medical reasons explaining differences in ICSI versus IVF in different countries are not apparent, but an extensive use of IUI as first line therapy may reduce the proportion of couples that proceed to an ICSI cycle.

Differences in the use of ICSI between countries—non-medical causes

Non-medical reasons for the differences observed between countries and regions could be different degrees of public funding or insurance coverage of ART. Data from the USA indicated that differences between states in the re-imbursement of the ART treatment influenced the extent that ICSI was used. It was shown that states with a mandated insurance coverage had a higher ratio of ICSI use to diagnosis of male-factor infertility than did states without insurance coverage (Jain and Gupta, 2007Go). However, the overall use of ICSI was almost similar in states with or without insurance coverage. This is in contrast to the differences between countries in Europe where two-fold differences exist. Data from Europe do not support that public funding of ART is a major factor determining the rate of ICSI versus IVF (Jones and Cohen, 2004Go). In the 4 Nordic countries where infertile couples are offered 3 fresh ART transfer cycles free of charge, the utilization of ICSI was low (44.3%). The situation is similar in the Netherlands where ICSI accounted for 40% of cycles. However, in Belgium and Spain where ART was also offered free of charge for 3 to 4 cycles through the National Health Programme, the rate of ICSI was high at 70.6–81.2%. In Switzerland with no National Health Programme funding of ART, the rate of ICSI was also high at 78.9%. Danish data from 2007 shows that the percentage of ICSI was 45.9% (4.628 cycles of ART) at private fertility clinics, where patients covered 100% of the costs of treatment, compared with 46.0% (6.143 cycles of ART) at public fertility clinics providing free of charge treatment (www.fertilitetsselskab.dk). It is thus evident that no direct relationship exists between presence or absence of state funding of ART and the percentage of ICSI cycles.

As is evident from Table I, both the number of ART treatment cycles and the distribution between IVF and ICSI showed major fluctuations during short time periods in Germany. The main reasons seem to be changes in the re-imbursement policy of governmental coverage for ART in general and for ICSI in particular (personal communication, Markus Kupka). In 1997 to 1998 ICSI accounted for 60.6 and 60.8% of all treatments, whereas this declined to a nadir of 32.5% in 2000. Subsequently the number of ART cycles increased to 87.185 and the rate of ICSI returned to a level of 60.3% in 2003. In the following years the number of ART cycles declined by almost 50% but the percentage of ICSI remained rather stable. The German data have been linked with changes in the re-imbursement policy in Germany. After the initial rise in the use of ICSI the public funding of 4 cycles of ICSI was removed after 1998 in order to await the results of the large German database on safety of ICSI (Katalinic et al., 2004Go). At that time only IVF was reimbursed. Later, from 2001 onwards the public funding was given again also for ICSI cycles, and this resulted in a marked rise. From 2004 onwards the re-imbursement for all ART was reduced to 50% and the number of treatment cycles from 4 to 3. This resulted in a dramatic drop in total number of ART cycles, but no major change in the proportion of ICSI. The conclusion that can be drawn from the German data is, as one could expect, that selective withdrawal of re-imbursement of ICSI cycles had a major impact on the distribution of ICSI versus IVF.

The conclusion is that there is no clear link between the re-imbursement system of the country and the percentage of ICSI, but as illustrated from Germany selective withdrawal of governmental reimbursement for ICSI caused a dramatic decline in the number of treatments.

Is the rising use of ICSI in non-male-factor infertility an appropriate technological adaptation?

The main explanation for the rising use of ICSI is related to its expanding use on non-male factor indications. The concern is that on these indications, the available studies show that ICSI offers no advantage over IVF in relation to pregnancy rates. A few randomized controlled studies have compared the efficacy of IVF versus ICSI in couples with unexplained infertility (Foong et al., 2006Go), tubal factor infertility (Aboulghar et al., 1996Go; Bukulmez et al., 2000Go) or non-male-factor infertility (Bhattacharya et al., 2001Go; Poehl el al., 2001Go) in terms of pregnancy rates or live birth rates. None of these studies have indicated that there are any benefits of ICSI compared with IVF. In the largest study, Bhattachaya et al. (2001) randomly assigned 415 consecutive couples with non-male-factor infertility including tubal and unexplained infertility and found that per retrieved oocyte there was a significantly higher fertilization rates in the IVF group (58%) compared with the ICSI group (47%) and the pregnancy rate per cycle was also significantly higher in the IVF group (33 versus 26%). In the study by Aboulghar et al. (1996)Go the fertilization rates per retrieved oocyte were also found to be significantly higher in the IVF group compared with the ICSI group (64.8 versus 53.5%). However, in the review by van Rumste et al. (2004)Go only the above-mentioned study by Bhattachaya et al. (2001) met the criteria of optimal study designs. The lack of any increase in pregnancy rates using ICSI on non-male indications was thus based on limited data, but the results have been confirmed in an appropriately done, although rather small, Canadian study by Foong et al. (2006)Go.

Previously published studies have found that 2–15% of all cases of IVF with normospermia resulted in total fertilization failure and about 20% in low fertilization rate (<25%) together with a recurrence risk of 30–50% (Ola et al., 2001Go, van der Westerlaken et al., 2005Go). Fertilizations failure under such conditions may be explained by a defect in the oocyte, lack of penetration of the zona pellucida by the spermatozoon, oocyte activation failure or sub-optimal culture conditions.

In the randomized controlled trial between IVF and ICSI Bhattacharya et al. (2001)Go found that failed fertilization after IVF took place in 5% (11/206) compared with 2% (4/209) after ICSI. The study included only women below the age of 37 years with non-male indication and couples with a fertilization rate below 20% in a previous IVF cycle were excluded. According to this study, it would require 33 ICSI cycles to prevent one unexpected total fertilization failure (primary prevention).

The fear of recurrence of total fertilization failure or low fertilization rate (<20–25%) after conventional IVF performed on non-male indication has in many clinics resulted in doing ICSI in a subsequent cycle (secondary prevention). However, Kinzer et al. (2007)Go found in a retrospective analysis of patient treatment cycles, that fertilization successfully occurred in 94% of subsequent cycles after total IVF fertilization failure. In total, 22% delivered which was comparable to other second IVF cycles in the clinic at the same time period. Nevertheless, most of their patients (67%) changed to ISCI in a subsequent cycle after failed IVF fertilization.

Another approach to avoid recurrence of total fertilization failure implies that sibling oocytes are divided in two groups, using standard IVF and ICSI on each half. Register data does not provide published information on this type of cycles, so the quantity remains unknown. In a prospective cohort study, Van der Westerlaken et al., (2005)Go randomized sibling oocytes to either IVF or ICSI from 24 couples with primary total fertilization failure and 14 couples with low fertilization rate (<25%). Oocytes treated with ICSI showed a significantly higher fertilization rate than oocytes treated with IVF. The recurrence rate of total fertilization failure in the oocytes exposed to IVF was 67% after primary total fertilization failure and 50% after low fertilization. Even though the semen quality by routine standards in the laboratory in all cases was regarded within the normal range, a comparison of semen characteristics, suggested some kind of male factor, since the total motile sperm count after preparation was higher in the IVF group with fertilization than without. The authors concluded that performing ICSI on at least a part of the oocytes can avoid unnecessary recurrent fertilization failure and since the contribution of IVF was small one might even perform ICSI on all oocytes. However, whether the higher fertilization rate implies more live born children was not investigated and a study with live birth as the primary outcome measure and the couple as the unit to randomize instead of fertilization rate and oocytes has not been conducted.

In conclusion, the use of ICSI as primary prevention of fertilization failures in couples without a clear male factor is not supported by experimental evidence. However, ICSI is likely to be used as secondary prevention, even though there is a good chance of achieving fertilization following repeated IVF.

Advanced age is associated with achievement of less oocytes after controlled ovarian stimulation as the number declines with around 1 oocyte per 2.3 years (Ziebe et al., 2001Go). As advanced age may be used increasing often as an indication for ICSI, it is interesting that Moreno et al., (1998)Go randomized 96 low-responder patients with non-male-factor infertility to either IVF or ICSI, and showed that ICSI offered no benefits in relation to pregnancy rates in this specific group of patients. Clinically, the risk of a fertilization failure is always more imminent using standard IVF when only few oocytes are retrieved (Rhemrev et al., 2001Go) so physicians may be inclined to choose ICSI in older women.

In summary, ICSI offers no general benefits in patients with unexplained infertility, tubal factors, ‘non-male’ factors or in women with advanced age that are often ‘low-responders’, but ICSI generally overcomes total fertilization failure after IVF. Whereas ICSI originally was used for severe male-factor infertility, it is suggested that ICSI may now be used more frequently in some countries compared with what is based on good medical evidence. This needs further assessment so there is a need for good randomized trials of IVF versus ICSI, for all indications except those with severe male reproductive problems.

ICSI and costs

IVF and ICSI are both expensive technologies with the latter being most costly due to more demanding expertise and equipment in the laboratory. In a comprehensive survey of the health economic aspects of IVF/ICSI by Collins (2002)Go, it was estimated that the average cost per IVF/ICSI cycle in 2002 was US$ 9547 (95% CI: US$ 8249–10 846) in USA and US$ 3518 (95% CI: US$ 2924–4111) in 25 other countries. No separate analyses of IVF and ICSI were performed.

Three studies which reported costs for IVF and ICSI separately (Silverberg et al., 2002Go; Strandell et al., 2005Go; Kjellberg et al., 2006Go) found that an ICSI cycle in average costs 11% more than an IVF cycle, while Kovacs et al. (2004)Go found a difference of more than 30%. However, differences in study design and the health-care setting make comparability between countries difficult.

Ola et al. (2001)Go found a cost difference of about £600 per fresh cycle between IVF and ICSI and estimated that £60 000 (cost needed to treat, CNT) would be needed to gain one additional live birth when ICSI was used for patients requiring IVF. Further, budget impact analysis showed that 29 extra cycles of conventional IVF could be done for the estimated CNT. Taken this into account the authors would not recommend routine use of ICSI to all IVF treatments.

Hollingsworth et al. (2007)Go evaluated the cost effectiveness of ICSI in Australia 2003 and included analyses of the potential costs if the indication for ICSI was expanded from severe to subnormal semen quality. Cost per ICSI cycle was estimated to A$2200–3500 and the crude costs per birth for ICSI with ejaculated sperm to A$8500–35 000 depending on live birth rate per cycle (10–25%). If ICSI was used instead of IVF the additional cost was estimated to A$600 per cycle and each additional live birth would cost an extra A$3636 under the best-case scenario. If there was no benefit, e.g. no child born, the additional incremental cost was A$600 per procedure.

A recent Dutch study (Bouwmans et al., 2008Go), where indications for ICSI were not reported, evaluated the costs of IVF and ICSI per first treatment cycle in four IVF centres and found that the total costs per ICSI cycle was 8.3% higher than for IVF. Hormonal stimulation (down-regulation with GnRH agonist, recombinant FSH and hCG) covered more than half of the total costs per cycle and as expected increased for both procedures with increasing age of the women. Fertilization costs constituted 12% for IVF and 20% for ICSI. Total actual costs per started IVF and ICSI cycle were {euro}2381 and {euro}2578, respectively, but the costs per ongoing pregnancy were {euro}446 less for ICSI compared with IVF. This was explained by a lower cancellation rate and a higher success rate per cycle.

In conclusion, the actual costs of ICSI are higher than for IVF and it is doubtful that expansion of the indications for ICSI is cost-effective. However, more analyses estimating the costs for different indications are needed.

ICSI and safety

With the introduction of ICSI in 1992 concern about the safety of the procedure was raised due to the invasiveness of the procedure. Further, it has been shown that couples undergoing ICSI because of severely impaired ejaculated semen quality or surgically retrieved sperm have an increased prevalence of chromosomal aberrations and Y-microdeletions. Since some of these chromosomal abnormalities can be inherited to the child (Aittomäki et al., 2004Go; Mau Kai et al., 2008Go), a karyotype should be included in the investigations of the male partner before ICSI is performed.

The risk of adverse perinatal outcome seems to be comparable to that of standard IVF (Källén et al., 2005Go). Two meta-analyses have demonstrated the same pattern for congenital malformations (Hansen et al., 2005Go; Lie et al., 2005Go), while a long-term follow-up study and a recent nationwide Danish registry study have found that the risk of chromosomal aberrations, especially inherited and de novo autosomal structural abnormalities and sex chromosome aneuploidy, was increased after ICSI (Bonduelle et al., 2002Go; Gjerris et al., 2008Go) when compared with the general population or IVF, respectively.

Long-term follow-up studies are sparse but reassuring, showing that in the age of 5–10 years cognitive, motor and socio-emotional development and growth were similar to IVF and spontaneously conceived children (Barnes et al., 2004Go; Wennerholm et al., 2006Go; Leunens et al., 2008Go).

The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group (2007)Go has in the article entitled Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in 2006: evidence and Evolution thoroughly discussed this issue and recommended more follow-up studies in order to clarify whether ICSI children differ from IVF children, children born after non-ART treatments or spontaneously conceived children from infertile as well as fertile couples. This is another argument against too liberal use of ICSI.


   Conclusions
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
References
 
The trend is that ICSI is used increasingly and it seems that at more than half of all ICSI cycles are now done in couples without a diagnosis of severe male factor. Although the rate of ICSI is almost identical in Australia and New Zealand, Europe and the USA, huge differences exist between countries. The explanations for these differences remain uncertain, partly due to inadequate National Register data and a lack of an international consensus on how to subclassify the indications for ART.

The available medical evidence does not support the liberal use of ICSI in couples with unexplained infertility, light to moderate impairments of semen quality and in patients with various mixed causes of infertility or few oocytes. ICSI may therefore now in many countries be used excessively compared with IVF, without good medical evidence that it is beneficial neither for the patients or society.


   References
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 

    Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin YM, Kamal A. Prospective controlled randomised study of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the treatment of tubal factor infertility with normal semen parameters. Fertil Steril (1996) 66:753–756.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Lancaster P, Nygren KG, Sullivan E, Zegers-Hochschild F. World collaborative Report on in vitro fertilization, 2000. Fertil Steril (2006) 85:1586–1622.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Aittomäki K, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C, Selbing A, Hazekamp J, Nygren KG. Safety issues in assisted reproduction technology: should ICSI patients have genetic testing before treatment? A practical proposition to help patient information. Hum Reprod (2004) 19:472–476.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Andersen AG, Jensen TK, Carlsen E, Jørgensen N, Andersson AM, Krarup T, Keiding N, Skakkebæk NE. High frequency of sub-optimal semen quality in an unselected population of young men. Hum Reprod (2000) 15:366–372.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Andersson AM, Jørgensen N, Main KM, Toppari J, De Meyts ER, Leffers H, Juul A, Jensen TK, Skakkebæk NE. Adverse trends in male reproductive health: we may have reached a crucial ‘tipping point. Int J Androl (2008) 31:74–80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Andolz P, Bielsa MA, Vila J. Evolution of semen quality in North-eastern Spain: a study in 22 759 infertile men over a 36 year period. Hum Reprod (1999) 14:731–735.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Auger J, Kunstmann JM, Czyglik F, Jouannet P. Decline in semen quality among fertile men in Paris during the past 20 years. N Engl J Med (1995) 332:281–285.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Barnes J, Sutcliffe AG, Kristoffersen I, Loft A, Wennerholm U, Tarlatzis BC, Kantaris X, Nekkebroeck J, Hagberg BS, Madsen SV, et al. The influence of assisted reproduction on family functioning and children’s socio-emotional development: results from a European study. Hum Reprod (2004) 19:1480–1487.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MP, Shaaban M, Khalaf Y, Seddler M, Ghobara T, Braude P, Kennedy R, Rutherford A, Hartshorne G, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilisation versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male-factor infertility: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2001) 357:2075–2079.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Bonde JP, Ernst E, Jensen TK, Hjollund NHI, Kolstad H, Henriksen TB, Scheike T, Giwercman A, Olsen J, Skakkebæk NE. The relation between semen quality and fertility. A population based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners. Lancet (1998) a 352:1172–1177.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Bonde JP, Jensen TK, Larsen SB, Abell A, Scheike T, Hjollund NHI, Kolstad H, Ernst E, Giwercman A, Skakkebæk NE, et al. Year of birth and sperm count in 10 Danish occupational studies. Scand J Work Environ Health (1998) b 24:407–413.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Bonduelle M, Van Assche E, Joris H, Keymolen K, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I. Prenatal testing in ICSI pregnancies: incidence of chromosomal anomalies in 1586 karyotypes and relation to sperm parameters. Hum Reprod (2002) 17:2600–2614.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Bouwmans CA, Lintsen BM, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD, Braat DD, Hakkaart L. A detailed cost analysis of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment. Fertil Steril (2008) 89:331–341.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Bukulmez O, Yarali H, Yucel A, Sari T, Gurgan T. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization for patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility: a prospective, randomized trial. Fertil Steril (2000) 73:38–42.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, Skakkebæk NE. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during the past 50 years. Br Med J (1992) 309:609–613.

    CDC. Center for Disease Control. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports, 2005. (2007) US Department of Health and Human Services. Reproductive Health. Assisted Reproductive Technology. www.cdc.org.

    Coetzee K, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update (1998) 4:73–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update (2002) 8:265–277.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Danish Fertility Society. www.fertilitetsselskab.dk.

    Danish National Board of Health. www.sst.dk.

    Dean JH, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2000 and 2001. In: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, national Perinatal Statistical unit and the Fertility Society of Australia (2003) Assisted Reproductive Technology Series, Number 7 www.npsu.npsu.unsw.edu.au.

    Devroy P, Vandervorst M, Nagy P, Van Steirtegham A. Do we treat the male or his gamete? Hum Reprod (1998) 13(Suppl 1):178–185.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF-monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1997. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum. Reprod (2001) a 16:384–391.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1998. Results generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod (2001) b 16:2459–2471.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1999. Results generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod (2002) 17:3260–3274.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2000. Results generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod (2004) 19:490–503.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2001. Results generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod (2005) 20:1158–1176.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod (2006) 21:1680–1697.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod (2007) 22:1513–1525.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE. The European IVF monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod (2008) 23:756–771.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update (2005) 11:261–276.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in 2006: evidence and evolution. Hum Reprod Update (2007) 13:515–526.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Eskenazi B, Wyrobek AJ, Sloter E, Kidd SA, Moore L, Young S, Moore D. The association of age and semen quality in healthy men. Hum Reprod (2003) 18:447–454.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Felberbaum RE, Buhler C, van der Ven H. Das Deutsche IVF-Register 1996–2006. (2007) Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. 10 jahre Reproduktionsmedizin in Deutschland.

    Foong SC, Fleetham JA, O’Keane JA, Scott SG, Tough SC, Greene CA. A prospective randomized trial of conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in unexplained infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet (2006) 23:137–140.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Gjerris AC, Loft A, Pinborg A, Christiansen M, Tabor A. Prenatal testing among women pregnant after assisted reproductive techniques in Denmark 1995-2000: a national cohort study. Hum Reprod (2008) 23:1545–1552.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Gunby J, Daya S. Assisted Reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2001 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertil Steril (2005) 84:590–599.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Gunby J, Daya S. Assisted Reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2002 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertil Steril (2006) 86:1356–1364.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Gunby J, Daya S. Assisted Reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2003 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertil Steril (2007) 88:550–559.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Librach C, Cowan L. Assisted Reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2004 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertil Steril (2007) Advanced Access August 2007.

    Hagen EC, Nelen WL, Hermens RP, Braat DD, Grol RP, Kremer JA. Barriers to physicians adherence to a subfertility guideline. Hum Reprod (2005) 20:3301–3306.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Hansen M, Bower C, Milne E, de Klerk N, Kurinczuk JJ. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects - a systematic review. Hum Reprod (2005) 20:328–338.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    HFEA. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. (2006) www.hfea.gov.uk.

    Hollingsworth B, Harris A, Mortimer D. The cost effectiveness of intracyctoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). J Assist Reprod Genet (2007) 24:571–577.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Hurst T, Shafir E, Lancaster P. Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 1997. (1999) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, national Perinatal Statistical unit and the Fertility Society of Australia. Assisted Reproductive Technology Series, Number 4. www.npsu.unsw.edu.au.

    Irvine S, Cawood E, Richardson D, MacDonald E, Aitken J. Evidence for deteriorating semen quality in the United Kingdom; birth cohort study in 577 men in Scotland over 11 years. Br Med J (1996) 312:467–471.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Jain T, Gupta RS. Trends in the use of intracytoplasmatic Sperm Injection in the United States. N Engl J Med (2007) 357:251–257.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Jørgensen N, Asklund C, Carlsen E, Skakkebæk NE. Coordinated European investigations of semen quality: results from studies of Scandinavian young men is a matter of concern. Int J Androl (2006) 29:54–61.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Jones HW, Cohen J. IFFS surveillance. Insurance coverage. Fertil Steril (2004) 81(Suppl 4):S- 17–18.

    Jouannet P, Wang C, Eustache F, Jensen TK, Auger J. Semen quality and male reproductive health: the controversy about human sperm concentration decline. APMIS (2001) 109:333–344.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Källén B, Finnström O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril (2005) 84:611–617.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Katalinic A, Rösch C, Ludwig M. German ICSI Follow-Up Study Group Pregnancy course and outcome after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a controlled, prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril (2004) 81:1604–1616.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Keegan BR, Barton S, Sanchez X, Berkeley AS, Krey LC, Grifo J. Isolated teratozoospermia does not affect in vitro fertilization outcome and is not an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril (2007) 88:1583–1588.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Khalil MR, Rasmussen PE, Erb K, Laursen SB, Rex S, Westergaard LG. Homologous intrauterine insemination. An evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 2,473 cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2001) 80:74–81.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Kidd SA, Eskenazi B, Wyrobek AJ. Effects of male age on semen quality and fertility: a review of the literature. Fertil Steril (2001) 75:237–248.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Kinzer DR, Barrett CB, Powers RD. Prognosis for clinical pregnancy and delivery after total fertilization failure during conventional in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril (2007) August 20, 2007 [Epub ahead of print].

    Kjellberg AT, Carlsson P, Bergh C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod (2006) 21:210–216.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Kovacs P, Matyas S, Bernard A, Kaali SG. Comparison of clinical outcome and costs with CC+gonadotropins and GnRHa+gonadotropins during Ivf/ICSI cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet (2004) 21:197–202.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger S. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril (1988) 49:112–117.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Kühnert B, Nieschlag E. Reproductive function of the ageing male. Hum Reprod Update (2004) 10:327–339.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Lackner J, Schatzl G, Waldhör T, Resch K, Kratzik C, Marberger M. Constant decline in sperm concentration in infertile males in an urban population: experience over 19 years. Fertil Steril (2005) 84:1657–1661.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Lampic C, Skog Svanberg A, Karlstrom P, Tyden T. Fertility awareness, intentions concerning childbearing, and attitudes towards parenthood among female and male academics. Hum Reprod (2006) 21:558–564.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Leunens L, Celestin-Westreich S, Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I. Follow-up of cognitive and motor development of 10-year-old singleton children born after ICSI compared with spontaneously conceived children. Hum Reprod (2008) 23:105–111.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Lie RT, Lyngstadaas A, Ørstavik KH, Bakketeig LS, Jacobsen G, Tanbo T. Birth defects in children conceived by ICSI compared with children conceived by other IVF-methods; a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol (2005) 34:696–701.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Maheshwari A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Effecty of female age on the diagnostic categories of infertility. Hum Reprod (2008) 23:538–542.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Mau Kai C, Juul A, McElreavey K, Ottesen AM, Garn ID, Main KM, Loft A, Jørgensen N, Skakkebaek NE, Andersen AN, et al. Sons conceived by assisted reproduction techniques inherit deletions in the azoospermia factor (AZF) region of the Y chromosome and the DAZ gene copy number. Hum Reprod (2008) 23:1669–1678.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Miskry T, Chapman M. The use of intrauterine insemination in Australia and New Zealand. Hum Reprod (2002) 17:956–959.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simón C, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients. Hum Reprod (1998) 13:2126–2129.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). www.nice.org.uk.

    Ola B, Afnan M, Sharif K, Papaioannou S, Hammadieh N, Barratt CL. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Considerations of fertilization and embryo development, cost effectiveness and safety. Hum Reprod (2001) 16:2485–2490.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Ombelet W, Menkveld R, Kruger TF, Steeno O. Sperm morphology assessment: historical review in relation to fertility. Hum Reprod Update (1995) 1:543–547.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmatic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet (1992) 340:17–18.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Paulsen CA, Berman NG, Wang C. Data from men in greater Seattle area reveals no downward trend in semen quality: further evidence that deterioration of semen quality is not geographically uniform. Fertil Steril (1996) 65:1015–1020.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Plachot M, Belaisch-Allart J, Mayenga J-M, Chouraqui A, Tesquier L, Serkine AM. Outcome of conventional IVF and ICSI on sibling oocytes in mild male factor infertility. Hum Reprod (2002) 17:362–369.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Plas E, Berger P, Hermann M, Pflüger H. Effects of ageing on male fertility? Exp Gerontol (2000) 35:543–551.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Poehl M, Holagschwandtner M, Bichler K, Krischker U, Jürgen S, Feichtinger W. IVF-patients with nonmale factor ‘to ICSI’ or ‘not to ICSI’ that is the question? J Assist Reprod Genet (2001) 18:205–208.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Rhemrev JPT, Lens JW, McDonnell J, Schoemaker J, Vermaiden JPW. The postwash total progressively motile sperm cell count is a reliable predictor of total fertilization failure during in vitro treatment. Fertil Steril (2001) 76:884–891.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Schmid TE, Eskanazi B, Baumgartner A, Marchetti F, Young S, Weldon R, Anderson D, Wyrobek AJ. The effects of male age on sperm DNA damage in healthy non-smokers. Hum Reprod (2007) 22:180–187.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Seo JT, Rha KH, Park Y-S, Lee MS. Semen quality over a 10-year period in 22,249 men in Korea. Int J Androl (2000) 23:194–198.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Silverberg K, Schertz J, Falk B, Beresniak A. Impact of urinary FSH price: a cost-effectiveness analysis of recombinant and urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the USA. Reprod Biomed Online (2002) 5:265–269.[Medline]

    Singh NP, Muller CH, Berger RE. Effects of age on DNA double-strand breaks and apoptosis in human sperm. Fertil Steril (2003) 80:1420–1430.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Skakkebæk NE, Jørgensen N, Main KM, Rajpert-De Meyts E, Leffers H, Andersson AM, Juul A, Carlsen E, Mortensen GK, Jensen TK, et al. Is human fecundity declining? Int J Androl (2006) 29:2–11.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, Jensen TK, Jørgensen N, Horte A, Irvine S, Suominen J, Andersen AG, Auger J, et al. Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod (2002) 17:503–515.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Sripada S, Fonseca S, Lee A, Harrild K, Giannaris D, Mathers E, Bhattacharya S. Trends in semen parameters in the Northeast Scotland. J Androl (2007) 28:313–319.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Strandell A, Lindhard A, Eckerlund I. Cost-effectiveness analysis of salpingectomy prior to IVF, based on a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod (2005) 12:3284–3292.

    Söderlund B, Lundin K. Choosing fertilization method by analyzing sperm morphology or by performing swim-up preparation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2006) 85:306–311.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Swan SH, Elkin EP, Fenster L. The question of declining sperm density revisited: An analysis of 101 studies published 1934–1996. Environ Health Perspect (2000) 108:961–966.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Terava A-N, Gissler M, Hemminki E, Luoto R. Infertility and the use of infertility treatments in Finland: Prelavence and socio-demographic determinants 1992–2004. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (2008) 136:61–66.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Tournaye H, Verheyen G, Albano C, Camus M, Van Landuyt L, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis of the literature. Fertil Steril (2002) 78:1030–1037.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    van der Westerlaken L, Helmerhorst F, Dieben S, Naaktgeboren N. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a treatment for unexplained total fertilization failure or low fertilization after conventional in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril (2005) 83:612–617.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    van der Westerlaken L, Naaktgeboren N, Verburg H, Dieben S, Helmerhorst FM. Conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with borderline semen: a randomized study using sibling oocytes. Fertil Steril (2006) 85:395–400.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    van Rumste MM, Evers JL, Farquhar CM. ICSI versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during IVF in patients with non-male factor subfertility: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod (2004) 19:223–227.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Wang YA, Dean J, Grayson N, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2004. (2006) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Perinatal Statistical Unit and the Fertility Society of Australia. Assisted Reproductive Technology Series, Number 10, November www.npsu.unsw.edu.au.

    Wang YA, Dean J, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2005. (2007) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Perinatal Statistical Unit and the Fertility Society of Australia. Assisted Reproductive Technology Series, Number 11, September www.npsu.unsw.edu.au.

    Wennerholm UB, Bonduelle M, Sutcliffe A, Bergh C, Niklasson A, Tarlatzis B, Kai CM, Peters C, Victorin Cederqvist A, Loft A. Paternal sperm concentration and growth and cognitive development in children born with a gestational age more than 32 weeks after assisted reproductive therapy. Hum Reprod (2006) 21:1514–1520.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. (1999) 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M, Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance, United States (2004). MMWR Surveill Summ (2007) 56(ss-6):1–12.[Medline]

    Wyrobek AJ, Eskenazi B, Young S, Arnheim N, Tiemann-Boege I, Jabs EW, Glaser RL, Pearson FS, Evenson D. Advancing age has differential effects on DNA damage, chromatin integrity, gene mutations, and aneuploidies in sperm. PNAS (2006) 103:9601–9606.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Ziebe S, Loft A, Petersen J H, Andersen AG, Lindenberg S, Petersen K, Nyboe Andersen A. Embryo quality and development potential is compromised by age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2001) 80:169–174.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Zorn YA, Virant Klun I, Verdenik I, MedenVrotec H. Semen quality changes among 2343 healthy Slovenian men included in an IVF-ET programme from 1983 to 1996. Int J Androl (1999) 22:178–183.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Received on April 23, 2008; revised June 23, 2008; accepted on July 2, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EndocrinologyHome page
R. Ivell and F. Grutzner
Evolution and Male Fertility: Lessons from the Insulin-Like Factor 6 Gene (Insl6)
Endocrinology, September 1, 2009; 150(9): 3986 - 3990.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. Nyboe Andersen, V. Goossens, S. Bhattacharya, A.P. Ferraretti, M.S. Kupka, J. de Mouzon, K.G. Nygren, and The European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium, for
Assisted reproductive technology and intrauterine inseminations in Europe, 2005: results generated from European registers by ESHRE: ESHRE. The European IVF Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2009; 24(6): 1267 - 1287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
14/6/593    most recent
dmn032v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nyboe Andersen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Loft, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nyboe Andersen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Loft, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?