Single donor and double donor sperm intrauterine insemination cycles Does double intrauterine insemination increase clinical pregnancy rates

Capsule:
Double-donor sperm intrauterine insemination does not increase clinical pregnancy rates compared with a single-donor sperm insemination.

Authors:
Shvetha M. Zarek, M.D., Micah J. Hill, D.0., Kevin S. Richter, Ph.D., Mae Wu, D.O., Alan H. DeCherney, M.D., Joseph E. Osheroff, M.D., Eric Levens, M.D.

Volume 102, Issue 3, Pages 739-743

Abstract:

Objective:
To compare the pregnancy outcomes in the setting of a single- vs. double-donor sperm intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment cycle.

Design:
Retrospective cohort study.

Setting:
Large, private assisted reproductive technology practice.

Patient(s):
Donor sperm IUI recipients.

Intervention(s):
None.

Main Outcome Measure(s):
Clinical pregnancy.

Result(s):
There were 2,486 double and 673 single-donor sperm IUI cycles. The two groups were similar for age, body mass index, and the number of prior cycles. The clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups (single: 16.4% vs. double: 13.6%). In univariate regression analysis, age, total motile sperm, and diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) were associated with pregnancy. Generalized estimating equation models accounting for repeated measures, age, DOR and total motile sperm and the interactions of these factors demonstrated that single and double IUI had similar odds of pregnancy (odds ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–1.44). Pregnancy rates remained similar between the two groups in matched comparison and other subgroup analyses.

Conclusion(s):
Single and double-donor IUI cycles had similar clinical pregnancy rates. This large data set did not demonstrate a benefit to routine double IUI in donor sperm cycles.

  • Lauren Johnson

    I congratulate the authors on publication of this manuscript. This paper is great example of a well-done retrospective study. The paper addresses a clinically relevant question, the sample size is large, relevant confounders were evaluated and controlled for, and findings from subgroup analyses (including first cycle only and 1:1 matched cohort) were similar to the findings for the entire group. Nicely done!

    • Shvetha Zarek

      Thank you very much for the kind words! This study was born out of answering a common, clinically relevant question and helped shape daily clinical practice. We appreciate your comments!

Translate »