JBRA Assisted Reproduction 2025;29(Suppl.2 SBRA 2025):224
Poster Presentation
29^th Annual Congress of the SBRA. São Paulo/SP - Brazil, 2025
doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20263857

P-212. Sperm selection by microfluidic device or swim-up yields similar outcomes in fresh embryo transfers following ICSI

Débora Scaraboto¹, Kahisa Natiele Fontana¹, Lidio Jair Ribas Centa¹, Rodrigo Santos Andrade¹

¹ Androlab - Clínica da Fertilidade - Curitiba - Paraná - Brasil

Objective: Several studies have suggested that microfluidic devices is an effective method for selecting healthier spermatozoa for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), especially when compared to the density gradient method, as they do not require centrifugation. However, some studies report no significant differences between microfluidic devices and the swim-up technique - a simple and efficient method that also avoids centrifugation. The objective of this study was to compare ICSI outcomes using sperm selected by a microfluidic device versus the swim-up technique.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 103 ICSI cycles followed by fresh embryo transfer, performed between 2022 and 2025 at a private assisted reproduction center in southern Brazil. Sperm selection was performed using a microfluidic device in 42 cases, while the swim-up technique was used in 61 cases. Clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss (biochemical pregnancy or miscarriage) and no pregnancy (defined as a negative β-hCG test) rates were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test, and Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple comparisons. A p value <0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results: The clinical pregnancy rate was 55% in the microfluidic group and 39% in the Swim-up group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.122). On the other hand, the rate of negative β-hCG results was significantly higher in the swim-up group (49%) compared to the microfluidic group (26%) (p=0.019), suggesting a possible association between the swim-up technique and lower pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfer. Pregnancy loss occurred in 19% of patients in the microfluidic devices group versus 11% on the swim-up group, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.284). Given that multiple outcome comparisons were performed, Bonferroni correction was applied to reduce the risk of false-positive findings, ensuring that significant results were statistically reliable. After the correction, the previously significant p-value (0.019) for the negative β-hCG outcome was adjusted to 0.057, which does not meet the threshold for statistical significance.
Conclusion: Among patients undergoing ICSI, the outcome comparison between microfluidic devices and swim-up technique for sperm selection showed no statistical difference. Although the swim-up technique had presented a trend toward higher rates of negative pregnancy results, this difference was not confirmed after correction for multiple comparisons. These findings suggest similar efficacy of both sperm selection methods. Further studies with a larger sample size should be developed to confirm these findings.