F.K. TETELYUTINA¹, M.K. IVANOVA¹, A.N. BAKSHAEVA^1, 2, E.P. KUZNETSOVA^1, 2, E.V. MIKHAILOVA²

 ¹Izhevsk State Medical Academy, Izhevsk

²First Republican Clinical Hospital, Izhevsk

 Contact details:

Bakshaeva A.N. — Assistant Lecturer of the Department of Hygiene, obstetrician-gynecologist

Address: 281 Kommunarov St., Izhevsk, Russian Federation, 426056, tel.: +7-912-450-13-83, e-mail: bakshaevaanna@mail.ru

In the Russian Federation, despite the efforts made, the level of female infertility has remained high over the past decades, aggravating a decrease in the birth rate. Among the many causes of infertility, the environmental factor remains insufficiently studied, in particular, the influence of oil production factors on early embryogenesis in women living in oil production areas.

The purpose — to assess the features of embryo development during the first five days in women living in an oil production area.

Material and methods. We analyzed 186 embryological protocols of women who received infertility treatment using ART methods at the IVF and Reproduction Center of the First Republican Clinical Hospital of Udmurt Republic from 2014 to 2023. The main group (n = 129) consisted of women living in the oil production area, the comparison group (n = 57) consisted of women living in the area without oil production. The groups were comparable in the proportion of mature oocytes, fertilization, cleavage, compaction, and blastulation.

Results. Female infertility of tubal origin dominated in both groups. Infertile women living in the oil production area more often had no oocytes. When assessing the quality of embryos on the fifth day of development, it was found that the proportion of low-quality embryos women in the main group was 1.8 times higher than in the comparison group. The frequency of pregnancy and childbirth in both groups did not have a statistically significant difference.

Conclusions. The analysis proved the negative impact of oil production processes on the early stages of embryogenesis.

Key words: female infertility, oil production, embryo.

REFERENCES

1. Vikhrev D.V., Kitsul I.S., Shatokhin M.N., Baulina O.A. Ways to improve medical care for male infertility: sociological aspect. Zdorov’e i obshchestvo, 2024, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 5–10 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.56685/18120555_2024_80_1_5
2. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii “Zhenskoe besplodie” [Clinical guidelines «Female infertility»], ID:641. Moscow, 2024. 91 p., available at: https:// cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/schema/641_2 (accessed on: 28.08.2024).
3. Alekseev V.B., Eliseeva T.N., Padrul’ M.M., Olina A.A. Hygienic analysis of risk factors for reproductive losses to justify intersectoral hygienic preventive measures. Zdorov’e naseleniya i sreda obitaniya, 2011, no. 4 (217), pp. 38–41 (in Russ.).
4. Bogdanova I.M., Boltovskaya M.N. Natural selection of human embryos: immune mechanisms of quality control. Immunologiya, 2019, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 67–72 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/0206-4952-2019-11008
5. Ivanova A.D., Semenova M.L. Chromosomal aberrations in human embryonic development as a biological phenomenon. ActaNaturae, 2023, vol. 15, no. 3 (58), pp. 27–36 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32607/actanaturae.25255
6. McCoy R.C., Demko Z.P., Ryan A., Banjevic M., Hill M., Sigurjonsson S. et al. Evidence of selection against complex mitotic-origin aneuploidy during preimplantation development. PLoS Genet, 2015, vol. 11 (10), p. 1005601. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005601
7. Bell A.D., Mello C.J., Nemesh J., Brumbaugh S.A., Wysoker A., McCarroll S.A. Insights into variation in meiosis from 31,228 human sperm genomes. Nature, 2020, vol. 583 (7815), pp. 259–264. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2347-0
8. Teklenburg G., Salker M., Molokhia M., Lavery S. et al. Natural selection of human embryos: decidualizing endometrial stromal cells serve sensors of embryo quality upon implantation. PloS One, 2010, vol. 5 (4), p. 10258. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010258.
9. Munné S., Spinella F., Grifo J., Zhang J., Beltran M.P., Fragouli E., Fiorentino F. Clinical outcomes after the transfer of blastocysts characterized as mosaic by high resolution Next Generation Sequencing- further insights. Eur. J. Med. Genet, 2020, vol. 63 (2), pp. 103741. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.10374
10. Tiegs A.W., Tao X., Zhan Y., Whitehead C., Kim J., Hanson B. et al. A multicenter, prospective, blinded, nonselection study evaluating the predictive value of an aneuploid diagnosis using a targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy assay and impact of biopsy. Fertility, Sterility, 2021, vol. 115 (3), pp. 627–637. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.052
11. Wilcox A.J., Baird D.D., Weinberg C.R. Time implantationof the conceptus and loss of pregnancy. N. Engl. J. Med, 1999, vol. 340 (23), pp. 1796–1799. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199906103402304.
12. Tusupkaliev A.B., Sarsembaeva L.K., Abdrakhmanova A.A. Health status of women in oil and gas regions of Aktobe region. Meditsinskiy zhurnal Zapadnogo Kazakhstana, 2018, no. 57 (1), pp. 10–14 (in Russ.).
13. Ivanova M.K., Bakshaeva A.N., Kuznetsova E.P., Sabitov M.R., Lisitsyna N.G. Features of reproductive health of women and children living in oil producing areas. Zdorov’e, demografiya, ekologiya finno-ugorskikh narodov, 2018, no. 3, pp. 30–35 (in Russ.).
14. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii “Otsenka ootsitov i embrionov v laboratorii VRT” [Methodical recommendations «Evaluation of oocytes and embryos in the ART laboratory»]. Moscow, 2021. 17 p., available at: https://www.rahr.ru/d_pech_mat_metod/MR_evaluation_of_embryos.pdf (accessed on: 05.09.2024).