4.3 Article

Impact of metabolic syndrome on the viability of human spermatozoa: a cross-sectional descriptive study in men from infertile couples

期刊

BASIC AND CLINICAL ANDROLOGY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12610-021-00142-8

关键词

Spermatozoa; Survival test; Infertility; Metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training [DHH2018-04-78]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that men with Metabolic Syndrome have lower sperm viability. Age and BMI were identified as independent factors associated with abnormal sperm viability.
Background A direct association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and sperm production/function has been proposed. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to determine the impact of MetS on sperm survival. Men from infertile couples treated at Hue University Hospital, Vietnam, were enrolled in this study, which spanned the October 2018 to October 2020 period. The general characteristics of the patients, including body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), the levels of different biochemicals, and semen parameters were determined, and sperm survival tests (SSTs) were performed. The modified National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III for the Asian population was used for MetS diagnosis. Results Men with an abnormal waist circumference (>= 90 cm) showed a higher rate of abnormal SST results (30.1% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.012). The frequency of abnormal SST results in patients with MetS (72.3%) was significantly higher than that in individuals without MetS (53.4%) (p = 0.02). Furthermore, the percentage of abnormal SST results in patients with MetS and with BMI >= 23 was significantly higher than those in individuals without MetS (77.1% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.03). Weak negative correlations were also observed between the patients' age and the SST results. Conclusion Sperm viability was lower in men with MetS. We also observed that age and BMI were independent factors associated with abnormal SST.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据