Andrology
September 21, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Density Gradient Centrifugation Versus Swim-Up for Cumulative Live Birth in IVF/ICSI Cycles With High Sperm DNA Fragmentation: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Luo Z, Bai X, Gui S, +5 more, Zhao S.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
In couples with high sperm DNA fragmentation, density gradient centrifugation and swim-up sperm preparation showed no significant difference in cumulative live birth.
What was studied
A retrospective single-centre propensity score-matched analysis of first autologous IVF/ICSI cycles with male DFI of 20% or more, comparing 279 density gradient centrifugation (DGC) and 279 swim-up (SU) cycles after matching from 1,769 couples.
Key findings
- No significant difference in cumulative live birth (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76-1.49)
- No significant difference in live birth per transfer (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89-1.52)
- Fertilization, embryo quality and blastocyst outcomes were similar
- Results consistent across abstinence-duration and semen-parameter subgroups
Clinical relevance
The study found no clear evidence favouring either preparation method for high-DFI samples, but wide confidence intervals mean meaningful differences cannot be excluded.
Who should care
Limitations
Retrospective single-centre design with residual imbalances (abstinence, IVF vs ICSI) and limited precision.
Neither swim-up nor density gradient preparation clearly outperformed the other for high DNA fragmentation sperm.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
A high sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) has been found to be associated with male infertility and suboptimal outcomes in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Although sperm preparation techniques can reduce DFI following processing, it is unclear whether density gradient centrifugation (DGC) or swim-up (SU) achieves better clinical outcomes, particularly in terms of cumulative live birth rates (cLBR), for patients with elevated DFI.
Objective
Using a propensity score-matched statistical approach, this study aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of DGC versus swim-up sperm preparation in male infertility patients with elevated sperm DFI. The primary objective is to determine which technique is associated with a higher cLBR following ART. Secondary objectives include evaluating post-processing DFI reduction, fertilization rates, embryo quality, high quality blastocyst rate, and other relevant laboratory and clinical outcomes.
Materials and methods
This study was a retrospective design conducted at a single-center reproductive center. A total of 1769 couples were included in the study. They were receiving their first autologous IVF/ICSI cycle with a male partner who had a DFI of ≥ 20%. Following matching for propensity, 279 cycles were allocated to each of the DGC and SU groups. The primary outcome was cLBR per oocyte retrieval.
Results
The SU group had a longer duration of abstinence and a higher proportion of conventional IVF cycles, while the DGC group included more ICSI cycles. There were no significant differences observed in cLBR (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.49) or live birth rate per transfer (adjusted OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.89-1.52). The absolute difference in cLBR between groups was small. Laboratory outcomes, including fertilization rate, high-quality embryo rate, high-quality blastocyst rate, and blastocyst formation rate, showed similar point estimates, with no statistically significant differences. Results were broadly consistent across subgroups stratified by abstinence duration (less than 3 days, 3-5 days, or more than 5 days) and baseline semen parameter status (normal or abnormal).
Discussion and conclusion
Among patients with DFI ≥ 20% undergoing IVF/ICSI, no statistically significant differences in cLBRs or laboratory outcomes were observed between DGC and SU. The effect estimates were close to the null and consistent across analyses; however, confidence intervals were wide, indicating limited precision. These findings suggest no clear evidence of a difference under the conditions studied. Further adequately powered prospective studies are warranted to more precisely estimate potential differences between these techniques.
DOI
10.1111/andr.70377
PMID
42765472
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed