Anesth Pain Med.  2020 Jan;15(1):49-52. 10.17085/apm.2020.15.1.49.

Comparison of chemical pregnancy rates according to the anesthetic method during ultrasound-guided transvaginal oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization: a retrospective study

• Heo HJ
• Kim YY
• Lee JH
• Lee HG
• Baek SM
• Kim KM

• KMID: 2500454
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.17085/apm.2020.15.1.49

Abstract

Background
Oocyte retrieval is the most important procedure in in vitro fertilization (IVF). Various anesthetic methods are used to control a patient’s anxiety and pain during IVF; however, there are no recommended anesthetic methods at present. In this study, we retrospectively investigated chemical pregnancy rates according to the anesthetic method used for oocyte retrieval.
Methods
We reviewed records of patients who underwent oocyte retrieval between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017. Patients were divided into the spinal anesthesia (SA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) groups. The primary outcome was chemical pregnancy rate after IVF.
Results
The study included 95 patients. SA was administered in 77 (81%) and MAC in 18 (19%). The overall chemical pregnancy rate was 32.6% (31/95). According to the anesthetic method, the pregnancy rate was 32.5% (25/77) in the SA group and 33.3% (6/18) in the MAC group. There was no statistical difference in the pregnancy rate between the groups (P = 0.575). The procedural time was significantly shorter in the SA group than in the MAC group (P < 0.001).
Conclusions
Chemical pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the SA and MAC groups. However, the procedure duration was shorter in the SA group than in the MAC group.

Keyword

Anesthesia; In vitro fertilization; Oocyte retrieval

Reference

Matsota P., Kaminioti E., Kostopanagiotou G. 2015. Anesthesia related toxic effects on in vitro fertilization outcome: burden of proof. Biomed Res Int. 2015:475362. DOI: 10.1155/2015/475362. PMID: 26161404. PMCID: PMC4486487.

Gejervall AL., Stener-Victorin E., Möller A., Janson PO., Werner C., Bergh C. 2005. Electro-acupuncture versus conventional analgesia: a comparison of pain levels during oocyte aspiration and patients' experiences of well-being after surgery. Hum Reprod. 20:728–35. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh665. PMID: 15608039.

Azmude A., Agha'amou S., Yousefshahi F., Berjis K., Mirmohammad'khani M., Sadaat'ahmadi F, et al. 2013. Pregnancy outcome using general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for in vitro fertilization. Anesth Pain Med. 3:239–42. DOI: 10.5812/aapm.11223. PMID: 24282775. PMCID: PMC3833042.

Aghaamoo S., Azmoodeh A., Yousefshahi F., Berjis K., Ahmady F., Qods K, et al. 2014. Does spinal analgesia have advantage over general anesthesia for achieving success in in-vitro fertilization? Oman Med J. 29:97–101. DOI: 10.5001/omj.2014.24. PMID: 24715934. PMCID: PMC3976722.

Wilhelm W., Hammadeh ME., White PF., Georg T., Fleser R., Biedler A. 2002. General anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care with remifentanil for assisted reproductive technologies: effect on pregnancy rate. J Clin Anesth. 14:1–5. DOI: 10.1016/S0952-8180(01)00331-2. PMID: 11880013.

Hammadeh ME., Wilhelm W., Huppert A., Rosenbaum P., Schmidt W. 1999. Effects of general anaesthesia vs. sedation on fertilization, cleavage and pregnancy rates in an IVF program. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 263:56–9. DOI: 10.1007/s004040050263. PMID: 10728631.

Viscomi CM., Hill K., Johnson J., Sites C. 1997. Spinal anesthesia versus intravenous sedation for transvaginal oocyte retrieval: reproductive outcome, side-effects and recovery profiles. Int J Obstet Anesth. 6:49–51. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-289X(97)80052-0. PMID: 15321311.

Christiaens F., Janssenswillen C., Verborgh C., Moerman I., Devroey P., Van Steirteghem A A, et al. 1999. Propofol concentrations in follicular fluid during general anaesthesia for transvaginal oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 14:345–8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/14.2.345. PMID: 10099976.

Coetsier T., Dhont M., De Sutter P P., Merchiers E., Versichelen L., Rosseel MT. 1992. Propofol anaesthesia for ultrasound guided oocyte retrieval: accumulation of the anaesthetic agent in follicular fluid. Hum Reprod. 7:1422–4. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137586. PMID: 1291569.

Piroli A., Marci R., Marinangeli F., Paladini A., Di Emidio G G., Giovanni Artini P P, et al. 2012. Comparison of different anaesthetic methodologies for sedation during in vitro fertilization procedures: effects on patient physiology and oocyte competence. Gynecol Endocrinol. 28:796–9. DOI: 10.3109/09513590.2012.664193. PMID: 22420562.

Ben-Shlomo I., Moskovich R., Golan J., Eyali V., Tabak A., Shalev E. 2000. The effect of propofol anaesthesia on oocyte fertilization and early embryo quality. Hum Reprod. 15:2197–9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.10.2197. PMID: 11006198.

Matsota P., Sidiropoulou T., Batistaki C., Giannaris D., Pandazi A., Krepi H, et al. 2012. Analgesia with remifentanil versus anesthesia with propofol-alfentanil for transvaginal oocyte retrieval: a randomized trial on their impact on in vitro fertilization outcome. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 21:685–92. PMID: 23265031.

Tewari S., Bhadoria P., Wadhawan S., Prasad S., Kohli A. 2016. Entropy vs standard clinical monitoring using total intravenous anesthesia during transvaginal oocyte retrieval in patients for in vitro fertilization. J Clin Anesth. 34:105–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.02.029. PMID: 27687355.

Jarahzadeh MH., Davar R., Hajiesmaeili MR., Entezari A., Musavi F. 2011. Remifentanil versus fentanyl for assisted reproductive technologies: effect on hemodynamic recovery from anesthesia and outcome of ART cycles. Int J Fertil Steril. 5:86–9. PMID: 24963364. PMCID: 4059954.

Kang YI., Bang EC., Lee HS., Cho KS., Kim SY., Sul JH, et al. 2008. The comparison of intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl versus alfentanill during oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization. Korean J Anesthesiol. 55:543–8. DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2008.55.5.543.