Sperm cryopreservation does not affect live birth rate in normozoospermic men: analysis of 7969 oocyte donation...

Does sperm cryopreservation influence the reproductive outcomes of normozoospermic patients in oocyte donation cycles?

After controlling for confounders, the use of cryopreserved semen from normozoospermic patients does not affect pregnancy and live birth rates after elective ICSI.

Sperm cryopreservation by slow freezing is a common practice in ART. While frozen-thawed semen typically presents reduced motility and vitality, its use for ICSI is generally considered adequate in terms of reproductive outcomes. Nevertheless, most studies comparing reproductive outcomes between fresh and cryopreserved sperm include patients with severe male factor (testicular sperm, oligo-, and/or asthenozoospermia) or women of advanced maternal age, where the altered quality of the gametes can partially mask the full effect of freezing/thawing.

The study included a retrospective cohort of 7969 couples undergoing their first oocyte donation cycle between January 2013 and December 2019 in one large clinic, using normozoospermic semen from the male partner. All cycles involved elective ICSI, fresh oocytes, and a fresh embryo transfer, either at cleavage or blastocyst stage. Two study groups were established based on the sperm status: fresh (n = 2865) and cryopreserved (n = 5104).

A slow freezing protocol was used for all sperm cryopreservation. Sperm washing, capacitation, and selection prior to ICSI were performed identically for fresh and frozen-thawed samples, using pellet swim-up. Fertilization rate (FR), pregnancy (biochemical and ongoing), and live birth rates were compared between study groups using univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

Male and female age, sperm concentration and motility after ejaculation, and number of oocytes inseminated were similar between cycles using fresh or cryopreserved sperm. Analysis by Student's t-test did not indicate a significant difference in FR between fresh and cryopreserved sperm (P = 0.0591); however, after adjusting for confounders, this difference reached statistical significance: 74.65% FR for fresh (CI 95%: 73.92-75.38) versus 73.66% for cryopreserved sperm (CI 95%: 73.11-74.20), P = 0.0334. The adjusted regression analysis revealed higher odds of biochemical pregnancy when using fresh sperm (odds ratio (OR): 1.143, P = 0.0175), but no significant effects of sperm cryopreservation were observed for ongoing pregnancy (OR: 1.101, P = 0.0983) and live birth (OR: 1.082, P = 0.1805).

Caution should be exerted when extrapolating these results to different protocols for sperm cryopreservation and selection, or to IVM, advanced maternal age and classical IVF cycles, which were excluded from analysis. Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, some uncontrolled for variables may affect the results.

Sperm cryopreservation does not affect pregnancy and live birth rates in normozoospermic patients, and although it may lower FR s slightly, this would not be clinically relevant. In line with previous studies that included patients with an apparent male or female factor, sperm cryopreservation is a safe and convenient technique.

The study received no external funding and all authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

N/A.