# ICSI - 1 in 10 babies have abnormalities, study says



## mb2512cat

Study says ICSI abnormality rate is double that of natural conception or non-ICSI IVF.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140122/UKs-popular-IVF-treatment-turmoil-shock-report-baby-defects.html

Thoughts?

/links


----------



## rs1984

For someone who is pregnant with an ICSI baby this is worrying. I'll be discussing it with my clinic. It is a worry but I'm not sure we'd have avoided ICSI had we known either way as it turns out DH's sample wasn't very good so we needed ICSI. It says there's a 10% chance of abnormalities but doesn't really specify what abnormalities and whether there is a sliding scale of probability, although it did say cerebral palsy is 0.4% opposed to the normal 0.2%. Some "defects" might be completely manageable where as others are not.

We may now see a rise in the use of IMSI instead of ICSI.


----------



## mincepie

I read the article and then read the comments, I was totally shocked! The comments are unbelievably ignorant, I guess it is the daily mail, but people are soooo stupid. Lots of comments about god not wanting people to have children and not interfering with nature etc. Shocking!


----------



## urbangirl

It's 10% of births, but the rate of abnormalities, it says, in the normal population is 5%, so it is only 5 extra abnormalities out of every 100 births. Personally, I can live with that risk. This bit was interesting:

"What's more, one interesting result from the research was that *when embryos created using ICSI were frozen, the risks were reduced.* It has been suggested that only the most robust embryos will survive the freezing and thawing process.

After my fresh bfn cycles I have a few frozen left over, I'm looking forward to trying them now wth a bit more positivity, maybe better luck is on its way!


----------



## joeyrella

It was a very interesting, and alarming, article.  I can clearly remember our consultant advising that as the first wave of ICSI babies had not yet grown into adulthood (and beyond to have children of their own) that using it was an 'unknown risk' in that respect.  


No one chooses to need ICSI, but perhaps it is up to us as consumers of fertility services to say we don't want to have it unless absolutely necessary, even if that may mean having to do more cycles of standard IVF before we get success.  It would be amazing if the NHS could give more IVF goes to people with male factor problems to reduce the rate of birth defects.


From my own personal experience as soon as we had a poor SA back we were told our only option was ICSI.  We had IUI whilst waiting and were successful on our second cycle.  I wonder how many other people have gone straight to the high tech, and more profitable, route based on similar advice?


----------



## butterflies4ever

I also read this article in today's paper   
I would still do picsi again given the chance   

Electra x


----------



## minkey114

Firstly I wouldn't worry too much about the article....however I do feel that clinics here do ICSI when perhaps it isn't needed  

We used 2 different inics in the UK and were told that ICSI was our only option.  We then went abroad and they did IVF with excellent fertilisation rates and our best result so far (although v early days and not taking anything for granted)......


----------



## mb2512cat

In reality it's such a small sample (of 300,000 babies, there were 939 ICSI babies, 91 of which had abnormalities) but the researchers still say it's statistically significant. I'm someone who is waiting to start IVF, but has already been faced with both issues raised by the article - naturally conceiving two babies with abnormalities AND being told DH's morphology is so low that ICSI is a very real possibility. Given that I know full-well what it means to be faced with being told your baby has serious problems, but that IVF with possible ICSI is likely to be the only way to avoid the chromosomal condition basically destroying the babies I conceive, then it's a chance we have to take!! I guess from a clinic's point of view, ICSI apparently increases the chances of pregnancy and it is a more expensive (ie profitable) procedure, so perhaps they are biased to recommend it. But if anyone can get to the bottom of why ICSI may cause the abnormality increase (the quality if the sperm selected? The invasive impact on the egg?) then perhaps they will be able to do something about it. Anyway, i am still very happy to try icsi, i dont see that we have much choice. Here's to hoping that the IVF works for us and that we at last get a healthy baby


----------



## goldbunny

mb cat it is thequality of the sperm - with ivf or natural conception the best sperm win, icsi sperm are randomly selected.


----------



## FertileRoad

I too read this and now worried. About to start on ICSI in June. DP has SSR completed in April told its healthly little swimmers. But now I worried as I have old eggs. This article could not have come at the worst time.


----------



## urbangirl

Goldbunny, sperm aren't randomly selected for ICSI, the embryologists choose the best ones to the best of their ability, but of course it's subjective- the best-looking ones, which can't indicate the state of their DNA.

Fertileroad, don't worry, it's just 5 more abnormailites per 100 than without it, it's not _that_ much. It's always good to have information, though and make up your own mind. ICSI seems pretty much par for the course for the over 40's.


----------



## Rach0924

Hi, i'm concerned to as due to start icsi may/june so will contact my treatment centre tomorrow to have a chat about this.


----------



## Duck007

You are better off reading the actual article rather than the newspaper version:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1008095#t=article

xx

/links


----------



## Keeping busy

I've read the article and want to point out it's not an English study and rates of abnormalities in both babies conceived naturally and assisted are lower than the stats in this article in the Uk from what I've read. It's not worth worrying about and I will be going ahead with ICSI at our next go as DH has poor swimmers


----------



## Essex Girl

I read the actual article first, then the DM one and couldn't believe how sensationalised the DM article is.  As for 'birth defects', that sounds alarming but it covers a multitude of things.  For instance, heart defects can range from small holes which close up without any medical intervention to major abnormalities.  Having been around this site for several years and taking a particular interest in children with special needs, I don't think anything like 10% of ICSI babies here have had significant birth defects.  
This is not new - the scientific article does say it confirms previous findings of a slightly increased risk from ICSI, and I remember discussing this a few years ago.
Even if there is a slightly increased risk of having a child with a birth defect, realistically, if you need ICSI, it's either take the risk or not have a child at all, and you wouldn't be doing ICSI at all if you didn't want to be a Mummy.  Don't let the DM put you off!

EG x


----------



## Aenor

I wouldn't take the slightest bit of notice of anything printed in the Daily Mail. They'll exaggerate and sensationalise and misrepresent anything to fit with their agenda. Vile newspaper. Whenever I see someone in the newsagents picking up a copy I just want to go up to them and say "WHY?!" (But I am a bit odd.   ) As someone said upthread, read the research paper on which it's based. Or read an article in a serious newspaper.


----------



## scoobydoo77

Nature still 'wins' even with ICSI - if the cells are not healthy enough to develop, then they won't and the embryo won't survive.  Surely the risk is (and always has been) premature birth which then leads to a higher risk of potential abnormalities?


----------



## scoobydoo77

http://www.readthehook.com/103871/birth-defects-when-37-percent-jump-doesnt-matter

An intelligent voice of reason. Finally!

/links


----------



## Littlegwen

This sample is too small for it to be statistically significant and it depends heavily on their definition of what is an abnormality. 

Although the couples chosen for the article are obviously chosen because their children have more serious health complications.


----------



## urbangirl

I don't think Aenor's post about the Daily Mail is fair comment, whether you agree with the paper's political stance or not they bring alot of important health subjects to a wide audience in a simple form, but anyone who wants to go into something deeper can look up the source of their research to get more detailed info about whatever it is.  I've done that on a quite a few of their articles, like the one on the plastic wand, and found their sources to be really good.  But I wouldn't have known about these things to look more into them in the first place if my attention hadn't been drawn to them by the Mail, which for some reason publishes a lot of fertility stories.  Every single paper has it's own agenda, the Daily Mail certainly isn't extraordinary in that.


----------



## Amz2006

My ICSI baby was born with 1 leg missing - They cannot give me a reason why and I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove it was the ICSI that caused it or just "one of those things" I have my days where I feel guilty and wonder how we will cope but he is perfect, happy smiley and I would rather have him here with one leg than not at all...


----------



## ladyroxton

I've had two babies using ICSI as that was our best option since we only had 9 straws of frozen sperm.  Both boys were born healthy with no abnormalities.

A friend of ours had a baby 'naturally' and he was born with Spina bifida and they told her that if she wanted to try again she'd need to double her dose of folic acid.  

Nature is nature - maybe we were just lucky but I'm glad we used ICSI otherwise our boys wouldn't be here.  There's a risk for every medical procedure, you just have to decide whether you're willing to take it or not.


----------



## Hayley1980

Evening ladies,

Have just come acroos this thread, jst wanna add my 2 pence worth.  Im a mummy of 3 children concieved through icsi and all 3 of my children are completely healthy and born at term.

My oldest DS is 4 and was born at 40 weeks at a whopping 10lb, hes a normal 4 year old and to be honest is very advanced, hes had a few viruses and been under the weather like ANY other child but is completely healthy and neva had antibiotics any chest, ear infection etc........

The other 2 are twins born at 37 weeks one weighing 7lb 4oz the other weighing 6lb 8oz and agin are both healthy.

I wonder if these children that they have studied were born at term? it says nothing about that? if babes are born early of course there gonna have difficulties, with organs, breathing, feedin etc. i know a lot of woman on here that have concieve through icsi and im positive the babes that are carried to term havent any abnormalies like they say, even ones that arnt.  Its a NOTHING article.  They also say when you concieve ova the age of 35 you have more of a chance of having a child born with Downs but look at the people that have children that dont, dont let this article put you off, any way you concieve is gonna carry risks.

I also have a friend that has had a boy and a girl that was born through icsi in the early 90s, the boy has just had a baby concieved  ooooooooo natural and the baby was born very healthy too.  And they said as his farther had male factor issues the child might not be able to concieve without help well he got his 16 year old gf pg.  This article is Not worth worring about.  

dont let the Daily mail put you off.

xxxxxx

good luck to all who tries icsi, i wish you all the BEST


----------



## princess30

I am just about to embark today on yet another icsi cycle - I have a healthy happy 19mth old girl.via icsi after7cycles she was a little fet. I would take the info with a handful of salt..I think the findings arr inconclusive.


----------



## rs1984

Princess good luck with your next cycle. 

Very bittersweet feelings looking back at this thread. When this article was published I was 10 weeks pregnant with an ICSI baby. I felt worried but thought it would be ok and that I'd had my share of bad luck. We then found out our baby had downs. We'll never know if it was because of ICSI or just one of those things. My believe was that it was but I wouldn't have done it any differently anyway. ICSI is the only chance for so many people and if that carries with it a higher chance of abnormalities then I, like many women, would run that risk to be a mummy. 

We didn't continue with that pregnancy but I have a miracle natural bfp asleep on my chest as I type.


----------



## Mistletoe (Holly)

There are several things here - firstly, having been on the receiving end of a totally sensationalised article written about my family with no facts as there were no facts given to them - it was all made up, I do not think newspapers are worth the paper they are written on. It is all about profit.
Secondly, the comments at the ends of the articles are sick and lead to a great deal of upset and are a sad aspect of today's society. When the article was about me, the comments made me feel 100 times worse than I already did and I had no right of reply as I did not want to speak to them and get involved in such   and open myself up to even more discussion.


As for the ICSI information it does depend on what they call an abnormality - my baby was born with a tiny birth mark above his ear, a tongue tie and torsion neonatorum (a torsion of the testis in the womb, so one side has died, other side is normal). Are these what they would include? All these things can happen in normal conception. None of them are serious.

In ICSI it could be that people with a poor sperm analysis are offered this treatment and those who have had testicular sperm retrieval. But those of us having IVF with donor sperm are also offered ICSI as the sperm can swim slowly when defrosted. Is there any research looking at really healthy sperm analysis samples from a donor and the risks of doing ICSI.

Also fertility patients can be a bit older, simply because fertility drops with age so there are more patients in the older group, and the time it takes to realise you are infertile, see a doctor and get a diagnosis. Chromosomal problems increase with age anyway. Have they properly case match controlled all the cases for all other confounding factors including age.


----------



## goldbunny

i'm pupo from my third ICSI cycle with four ICSI frosties in the freezer of which I am very proud. 

There are all kinds of risks and problems with natural conceptions as well as ICSI. Life's a lottery. I wouldn't have chosen this path, I never expected to need help with making a family but I am grateful for it. I think as well as there being more older parents having ICSI, older parents are better able to understand that a baby isn't meant to be 'perfect' it's a mixture of things and a real person.. I think if I had had a baby at 19 I would have been very stressed if it hadn't been showroom pristine but I am more more sensible these days... things that set us apart from others is what stops us all being clones... i'm just praying for a baby, I will love it regardless.


----------



## Sheilaweb

Well said goldbunny - 
My 3 year old is an icsi baby, she was delivered safely at 38 +5 - healthy and happy and a respectable 6lb 3.5oz - whereas I on the other hand, was born almost 3 months prematurely weighing 2lb, I had a hip defect and have a dodgy heart valve and arthritis, my hubby was diagnosed with epilepsy at age 11, the treatment from which has rendered him infertile.  Oh yes, and I have a history of fibroids.  

I hate the way the Daily Mail continues to scare monger and frighten couples.... and stupid ill informed people are gullible enough to accept their ramblings as the truth and add their own weird take on infertility.

At the end of the day, if you are unable to conceive children naturally, why not use IVF/ICSI, I'd rather have an even more special child than remain childless.... one thing i do agree on though, ICSI is used when it's not always 'necessary'...but that in itself is driven my the consumer market to go to the clinic that offers the best success rates.

Fertility treatment is not an easy option, and it tends to come at the end of years of heartache and misery - I for one couldn't be prouder and more appreciative of the miracle that is my daughter, I treasure and cherish her - and the pioneering scientists and doctors, will always hold a special place in my heart.

Sheila - hoping that this shocking and damning report doesn't put off couples going through this treatment


----------



## armaita

Hi ,

Just read the original research thoroughly as my son has ASD. I had ICSI and my DH had his sperm extracted. I worry that this process did contribute to my sons condition.....I worry a lot


----------



## Roygbiv

Our consultant actually told us that ICSI babies are more likely to have abnormalities than natural, and just usual IVF. 
He said the most prominent abnormality was in boys, where the parents used ICSI because of a problem with the dad's sperm. The boys tended to have sperm issues too. 
But then, if you need ICSI you need ICSI. What other choice is there?!


----------



## bombsh3ll

I hate these articles, they are not at all helpful to people with infertility.

The thing is, IVF/ICSI does not cause healthy children to become ill or disabled- they cause children who wouldn't otherwise be in the world at all to be alive. Some of them happen to have problems, but that child would not have existed without the technology used in their conception.

We shouldn't feel guilty for striving for what comes effortlessly to most people.

B xxx


----------



## mrsbp

Hi,

I didnt read the article as i dont want to start worrying myself but i just wanted to add something on the thread.

At my information evening about ICSI before i started treated my doctor was very upfront with the abnormalities rates. However, he listed some of the things that they would class as abnormalities and now im not panicked at all. He said they class things such as Asthma, Eczma etc and for me i have both of the examples along with my brothers and its not a big problem.
I think articles like these (im just guessing as i've not read it) should specificy what they class as abnormalities so that they actually get there point across. Im sure if they listed them all everyone would feel better as half of them wouldnt actualyl be that bad.

after all who can we call a perfect person? Nobody in the world could possible go through their whole life without having something less than perfect!

I have a few moles, freckles, asthma, eczma, Polycystic ovairies! Im not perfect full of abnormalities and i wasnt born by ICSI and im perfectly happy  

sorry if what im saying isnt relevant to the article!


----------

