Effects of testicular sperm aspiration upon first cycle ICSI-ET for type 2 diabetic male patients

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographics of study samples by T2DM status

variables	T2DM group (n = 54)	Non-diabetic group (n = 1165)	P-value
Male age (years, x̅±SD)	32.42 ± 3.68	30.09 ± 3.71	0.000
Female age (years, x̅±SD)	29.35 ± 2.76	28.04 ± 3.20	0.003
Male BMI (kg/m2, x̅±SD)	24.57 ± 3.09	24.10 ± 3.48	0.329
Female BMI (kg/m2, x̅±SD)	22.37 ± 3.18	22.31 ± 11.01	0.971
Smoking (n, %)	10 (18.52)	169 (14.52)	0.417
Year of infertility (years, x̅±SD)	3.20 ± 1.47	3.37 ± 2.41	0.623
FSH on HCG day (mIU/ml, x̅±SD)	18.14 ± 9.82	17.01 ± 8.02	0.386
P on HCG day (mIU/ml, x̅±SD)	1.33 ± 0.86	1.37 ± 0.67	0.621
LH on HCG day (ng/ml, x̅±SD)	1.87 ± 1.12	1.85 ± 1.23	0.931
FSH level (mIU/ml x̅±SD) (male)	6.24 ± 2.75	5.71 ± 1.67	0.672
TES level (ng/ml x̅±SD) (male)	2.54 ± 0.97	2.83 ± 1.14	0.713
Number of available Embryos (x̅±SD)	6.18 ± 3.48	6.18 ± 3.74	0.999
Number of high-quality embryos (x̅±SD)	3.78 ± 2.81	3.80 ± 2.98	0.950
Left testicular volume (ml)	14.72 ± 2.84	14.22 ± 3.00	0.225
Right testicular volume (ml)	14.65 ± 2.96	14.36 ± 2.96	0.491

P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.T2DM group has significantly higher male and female age than non-diabetic group (p < 0.05). Other characteristics were not differed between T2DM and non-diabetic groups (p > 0.05).

Table 2. Comparison of clinical outcomes from TESA-ICSI treatment between T2DM and non-diabetic groups

variables	T2DM group (n = 54)	Non-diabetic group (n = 1165)	P-value
Available embryo rate (%)	75.20 ± 26.40	78.36 ± 23.25	0.332
High quality embryo rate (%)	46.49 ± 30.37	47.55 ± 28.57	0.789
Fertilization rate (%)	74.05 ± 18.58	73.27 ± 19.72	0.775
Normal fertilization rate (%)	69.72 ± 18.16	69.15 ± 19.89	0.836
Cleavage rate (%)	105.69 ± 13.82	104.73 ± 18.88	0.713
Implantation (n, %)	27/47 (57.45)	690/1209 (57.07)	0.959
Clinical pregnancy (n, %)	24/32 (71.32)	552/774 (75.00)	0.651
Abortion (n, %)	5/24 (20.83)	49/552 (8.88)	0.049

P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.There was no significant difference of individual available embryo rate, high-quality embryo rate, fertilization rate, normal fertilization rate, implantation rate, cleavage rate and clinical pregnancy rate between T2DM and non-diabetic groups (p > 0.05). Abortion rate was marginal significantly different between T2DM and non-diabetic groups (p = 0.049).

Table 3. The association between T2DM and TESA-ICSI treatment outcomes

	Model 1		Model 2
	β-coefficient (95% CI)	P-value	β-coefficient (95% CI)	P-value
Available embryo rate (%)	−0.03 (−0.10, 0.03)	0.332	−0.03 (−0.09, 0.04)	0.422
High quality embryo rate (%)	−0.01 (−0.09, 0.07)	0.789	−0.00 (−0.08, 0.08)	0.948
Fertilization rate (%)	0.01 (−0.05, 0.06)	0.775	0.01 (−0.05, 0.06)	0.795
Normal fertilization rate (%)	0.01 (−0.05, 0.06)	0.836	0.01 (−0.05, 0.06)	0.853
Cleavage rate (%)	0.01 (−0.04, 0.06)	0.713	0.01 (−0.04, 0.06)	0.717
	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Clinical pregnancy	1.21 (0.53, 2.73)	0.652	1.23 (0.54, 2.80)	0.613
Abortion	2.70 (0.97, 7.55)	0.058	2.53 (0.89, 7.13)	0.080

Model 1: crude model.

Model 2: adjusted male age and female age.

In crude model and fully adjusted model, no significant association was observed between T2DM and TESA-ICSI treatment outcomes.

Figure 1. Flow-chart of the study cohort characteristics. CBAVD, congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens; TESA-ICSI, testicular sperm aspiration-intracytoplasmic sperm injection; T2DM: type 2 diabetic mellitus

Figure 2. Flowchart for cohort selection.T1DM: type 1 diabetic mellitus; T2DM: type 2 diabetic mellitus