DOES THE FERTILIZATION AND REPRODUCTION SUCCESS IN ISO 5/7 LABOR HAVE A DIFFERENCE WHEN COMPARED TO A CONVENTIONAL LABORATORY?
Érica Eugênio Lourenço Gontijo, Marcos Gontijo da Silva, Ana Maria de Castro, Hanstter Hallison Alves Rezende, Mário Silva Approbato
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the tax of embryo’s development, embryo quality, chemical pregnancy and microbiological evaluation of the means of embryos’ cultivation from patients attended at the Human Reproduction Laboratory of the conventional laboratory and after the adjustment of RDC n° 23 de 2011, when it started to be classified as ISO 5/7 laboratory in 2013 and 2014. METHODOLOGY: This control case study was developed at the LabRep/HC/UFG, located in Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil. It uses indirect observation as research technique in order to analyze the records of women attended at the laboratory. From the total of women researched, 87 of them were from the conventional laboratory and 191 were from the ISO 5/7 laboratory. The variables analyzed were: embryo’s development, βhCG result, embryo quality and the assessed microbiological contamination of the means of embryos’ cultivation. The data was inserted in the Epi-Info 33.2 program and it was analyzed in Bioestat 2.3. The groups were compared by odds ratio (OR) and chi-square with p<5%. RESULTS: In ISO 5/7 laboratory, there was 74.1% of success in the embryo’s development while in the conventional laboratory, there was 67.8% (OR: 1,30; IC: 0,47-3,61; χ2: 0,24; p: 0.81). Moreover, in ISO 5/7 laboratory, 96.6% of the generated embryos were A or B, whereas 90.4% in the conventional laboratory (OR: 0,8906; IC: 0,27-2,89; χ2: 0,037; p: 0,85). The pregnancy success in ISO 5/7 laboratory was 22.8% and 36.2% in the conventional laboratory (OR: 1,92; IC: 0,81-4,52; χ2: 2,24; p: 0,13). CONCLUSION: There was not a statistic difference between both laboratories.
Keywords
References
1. World Health Organization. Global status report on non communicable diseases 2010 [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2010 [cited 2019 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_full_en.pdf
2. European Society of Human Genetics. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe. In: Proceedings of the 23 rd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embriology - ESHRE [Internet]. Vienna: European Society of Human Genetics; 2007 [cited 2019 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.eshg.org/94.0.html
3. Moraes PF, Gigante LP, Ferrari AN, Mattos ALG. Evolução de casais inférteis por um período de até 10 anos. Revista AMRIGS. 2015;48(4):230-4.
4. Gontijo ÉEL, Approbato MS. Relationship between biochemical, environmental, and microbiological changes with the success rate of fertilization techniques. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2013;17(6):357-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20130081.
5. Foizer BRR, da Silva KR, Vieira JDG, do Amaral WN. Contaminação microbiológica em laboratório de reprodução humana e suas implicações no sucesso da reprodução assistida. Reprodução & Climatério. 2014;29(2):66-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.recli.2014.08.005.
6. Munch EM, Sparks A, Duran H, Van Voorhis B. Lack of carbon air filtration impacts early embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(7):1009-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0495-1. PMid:26003657.
7. FOIZER BRR. Investigação bacteriológica e Micológica em placas de cultivo de embriões em laboratórios de reprodução humana Goiânia. Goiânia: Universidade Federal de Goiás; 2010.
8. Mendes AIG, Silva MSE, Do Amaral WN, De Castro EC. Confiabilidade da contagem de folículos antrais com o uso de ultrassom bidimensional e tridimensional: uma revisão sistemática. Reprodução & Climatério. 2014;29(2):48-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.recli.2014.08.001.
9. Bento F, Esteves S, Agarwal A. Quality Management in ART Clinics [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4419-7139-5.pdf
10. Klipstein S, Regan M, Ryley D, Goldman M, Alper M, Reindollar R. One last chance for pregnancy: a review of 2,705 in vitro fertilization cycles initiated in women age 40 years and above. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):435-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.020. PMid:16084887.
11. Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. 8o Relatório do Sistema Nacional de Produção de Embriões Agência [Internet]. Brasília: ANVISA; 2015 [cited 2019 Feb 22]. p. 1-27. Available from: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/wps/wcm/connect/9cddb8004840 da35a438a5bdc15bfe28/sisembrio8.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
12. Freitas M, Siqueira AA, Segre CA. Avanços em reprodução assistida. Revista Brasileira de Desenvolv Hum. 2008;18(1):93-7.
13. Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução RDC no 33, de 17 de fevereiro de 2006. Aprova o Regulamento técnico para o funcionamento dos bancos de células e tecidos germinativos [Internet]. Diário da República Federativa do Brasil; Brasília; 2006 [cited 2019 Feb 22]. Available from: http://adcon.rn.gov.br/ACERVO/Suvisa/doc/DOC000000000025025.PDF
14. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução- RDC n° 23, de 27 de maio de 2011 [Internet]. Diário da República Federativa do Brasil; Brasília; 2011 [cited 2019 Feb 22]. Available from: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/wps/wcm/connect/d3f7c4804986e29a8e51ff4ed75891ae/RDC_23_2011.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
15. Freitas M, Siqueira AA, Segre CAM. Avanços em Reprodução Assistida Advances. Revista Brasileira de Crescimento e Desenvolvimento Humano. 2015;7(11):956-63.
16. Esteves S C. Sala limpa Classe 100 / ISO 5: Condição sine qua non nos laboratórios de reprodução assistida ? Arquivos H ELLIS. 2007;3(4):1-15.
17. Foizer BRR, do Amaral WN, Sadoyama G. Investigação bacteriológica e micológica de placas de cultivo de embriões em laboratório de reprodução humana. Reprodução & Climatério. 2010;26(1):12-8.
18. Kastrop PM, de Graaf-Miltenburg LA, Gutknecht DR, Weima SM. Microbial contamination of embrio cultures in an ART laboratory: sourses and management. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(8):2243-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem165. PMid:17584750.
19. Koneman E. Diagnóstico microbiológico: texto e atlas colorido. 6. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2008.
20. Cohen J, Gilligan A, Esposito W, Schimmel T, Dale B. Ambient air and its potential effects on conception in vitro. Hum Reprod. 1997;121(8):1742-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.8.1742. PMid:9308805.
21. Depa-Martynow M, Jedrzejczak P, Pawelczyk L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo quality in in vitro fertilization program. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2007;45(Suppl 1):S85-9. PMid:18292842.
22. Esteves SC, Bento FC. Air quality control in the ART laboratory is a major determinant of IVF success. Asian J Androl. 2015;18(4):596-9. PMid:26585700.
23. Munch EM, Sparks A, Duran H, Van Voorhis B. Lack of carbon air filtration impacts early embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(7):1009-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0495-1. PMid:26003657.
24. Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J, et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(9):2427-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep. a136312. PMid:8530679.
25. Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen A, Gabrielsen A, Andersen A. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. 1997;12(7):. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1545–59.
26. Shulman A, Ben-Nun I, Ghetler Y, Kaneti H, Shilon M, Beyth Y. Relationship between embryo morphology and implantation rate after in vitro fertilization treatment in conception cycles. Fertility and sterility [Internet]. 1993 Jul;60(1):123–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8513927.
27. Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Polz W, Tews G. Embryo fragmentation in vitro and its impact on treatment and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(2):281–95.
28. Khoudja RY, Xu Y, Li T, Zhou C. Better IVF outcomes following improvements in laboratory air quality. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(1):69-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-012-9900-1. PMid:23242648.
29. Esteves SC, Bento FC. Implementation of air quality control in reproductive laboratories in full compliance with the brazilian cells and germinative tissue directive. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(1):9-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.10.010. PMid:23177417.
30. Khoudja RY, Xu Y, Li T, Zhou C, Better IVF outcomes following improvements in laboratory air quality. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(1):69-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-012-9900-1. PMid:23242648.
31. Donadio NF, Donadio N, Celestino CO. Caracterização da inviabilidade evolutiva de embriões visando doações para pesquisas de células-tronco. Rev bras ginecol obstet [Internet]. 2005;27(11):665–71. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbgo/v27n11/28708.pdf.
32. Meyer A, Sarcinelli PN, Moreira JC. Estarão alguns grupos populacionais brasileiros sujeitos à ação de disruptores endócrinos? Cad Saude Publica. 1999;15(4):845-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X1999000400018. PMid:10633206.
33. Boone W, Johnson J, Locke A, Crane M, Price T. Control of air quality in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertility and Sterility [Internet]. 1994;71(1):1–12. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9935133
Submitted date:
02/22/2019
Accepted date:
03/11/2021
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email