P-028 Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in male patients with temporary ejaculation failure undergoing assisted reproductive technology

Abstract Study question When temporary ejaculation failure occurs on the oocyte retrieval day, choose surgical sperm retrieval or oocyte cryopreservation? Summary answer TESA-ICSI and oocyte cryopreservation are both relatively efficient and safe way. Embryos have better developmental potential through TESA-ICSI. What is known already Nearly 9% of men among couples who use assisted reproductive technology have temporary ejaculation failure (TEF) on the oocyte retrieval day. If they fail to provide semen sample, the couples may face three choices (1. surgical sperm retrieval; 2. oocyte cryopreservation; 3. canceling the oocyte retrieval). The aim of the study was to compare the impact of testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) or oocyte cryopreservation on the clinical outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients with TEF. Study design, size, duration The retrospective study included 345 male patients with TEF in our University-affiliated IVF center from 2015 to 2021. Participants/materials, setting, methods Three hundred and forty-five male patients were divided into two groups. Two hundred patients chose TESA-ICSI (the TESA group), while another 145 patients chose oocyte cryopreservation, waiting for the man’s next successful sperm ejaculation and subsequent ICSI (the frozen oocyte group). We investigated the embryo development, pregnancy and perinatal outcome, and included the data from fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycle. Herein, all patients in the frozen oocyte group received hormone replacement and fresh ET. Main results and the role of chance Firstly, there were no significant difference in the female BMI, FSH, antral follicle count (AFC), AMH, and male semen quality between the two groups. For embryo development, both two groups have the similar normal fertilization rate (71.5% vs 69.7%, P = 0.242). However, the frozen oocyte group has lower rate of Day3 high quality embryo (31.1% vs 49.3%, P < 0.001), available embryo rate (49.8% vs 55.8%, P = 0.043), and available blastocyst rate (18.6% vs 33.7%, P < 0.001). For pregnancy outcome, the clinical pregnancy rate (44.2% vs 50.0%), pregnancy loss rate (4.8% vs 2.9%) and live birth rate (38.5% vs 46.1%) were similar. And there were no significant differences in the rates of Gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placenta previa and fetal malformation between the two groups. Limitations, reasons for caution This study only included data from fresh embryo cycles, not yet from thawed embryo cycles. Although we presented complete embryo development data for each couple, there may be some bias in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes due to the lack of data from thawed embryo cycles. Wider implications of the findings The present study suggested that TESA-ICSI and oocyte cryopreservation are both relatively efficient and safe way to help the patients encountering TEF. Due to the embryos with better developmental potential through TESA-ICSI, choosing the surgical sperm retrieval might have more have more advantages, and this has to be further verified. Trial registration number REC No. (2023(S142))