# Doctors are concerned that ICSI is used too often.



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

Announced 44 minutes ago...

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jV7-dlt-gkVwRvaFmmGAWEZZabaw

/links


----------



## Sunshine73 (Oct 2, 2006)

Interesting point as this is exactly what happened to me. My DH's sperm was excellent, but unfortunately we had simply not managed to conceive. I was told by my the consultant that because we'd been trying for 3 years we should have ICSI to increase our chances of conceiving. (He even went on to say that there was an increased chance of passing on fertility problems to any child that may result from an ICSI pregnancy, but that 'this was nothing to be overly concerned about'... an interesting comment to make to a couple who have reached the last desperate stage in their journey to have a family  )

We had 2 cycles of ICSI in the end (both BFNs), costing an extra £1,900 in total (both cycles were self-funded). What was most frustrating is that they failed to suggest on our first cycle that we could split the eggs and done ICSI on one half and IVF on the other half. This would have settled the debate over whether or not ICSI was ever needed. 

It was our suggestion that this should happen on our second cycle, but unfortunately I did not generate a large enough crop of eggs (6), and we were just too scared to end up with no embryos. (Funnily enough we had 100% fertilisation.  )

A few months after my second failed ICSI, I conceived naturally, and so I am just incredibly grateful to be where I am now. That said, this has simply reinforced my scepticism over whether we ever needed ICSI in the first place. Its difficult not to feel like you are paying an unnecessary 'insurance' just to ensure the clinics success rates aren't affected.

It's an incredible hard call to make if ICSI has been suggested, but if you have no real reason to need it (e.g. unexplained infertility) I would at least ask your clinic whether or not it is possible to split your eggs into IVF/ ICSI. At least that way you'll know if you are unfortunate enough to need another cycle.

Sunshine xxx


----------



## Caz (Jul 21, 2002)

Oooh very interesting article.

_"It is being used increasingly when couples are classified as having mixed causes of infertility, unexplained infertility, or because they are older - in their late 30s or early 40s."_

That sums up my situation quite accurately. Similar to Sunshine, we were offered ICSI from the first go (although not at consultation stage as the SA was pefectly ok then and it was assumed we'd have IVF straight up until then). My DH's SA was only just over the limit to what would be called abnormal and only in percentage of abnormal sperm (count and motility it was fine). I went with what my clinic - the professionals - said was the right thing to do and, admittedly I was coming to from EC and without my DH with me when I had to make the decision to spend an extra £1000 and have ICSI so... while I wasn't pressurised into doing so, I do kind of feel that I could only trust what they were telling me we needed and to do it. In fact it might have been perfectly the right decision for us but I neevr got a chance to test the waters so to speak. As an egg sharer I never had more than 6 eggs of my own so, subsequently, splitting them to find out whether they would fertilise with IVF wasn't really much of an option either. 
I have heard that ICSI is used as a standard treatment in the U.S. and I think it's going that way here too. I'm not sure what (or even if) anything should be done about that as it seems that everyone wants to maximise their chances of success. However, I think clinics should be made to tell patients the potential drawbacks of ICSI (i.e. that natural selection is effectively bypassed and that it can lead to higher rates of m/c and birth defects. ) I know the majority of ICSI babies are fit and healthy but, again it is one of those gaps in the HFEA statistical data gathering. You have nothing to compare statistically to say exactly how much more prevalent m/c might be with an ICSI pregnancy than a standard IVF one.

C~x


----------

