Friday, February 25, 2011

Review of the Fertility Cleanse Kit


I am 17DPO today, which means AF should arrive today or tomorrow. Sheesh, my Luteal Phase is so LONG! (The one advantage to this is that I actually long for AF to get here just so I can start a new cycle. )

I wanted to review and record my thoughts/experiences with the Fertility Cleanse Kit I did this cycle, as prescribed by Hethir Rodriguez (Holistic Medical Practioner and Herbalist) from http://natural-fertility-info.com/. The herbs and the Fertility Kit itself is actually produced by Crystal Star of Healthy Healing (pictured above), and I assume it is just distributed on their behalf. Here is the kit if you want to see it directly: http://www.healthyhealing.com/catalog/ProductFamily.aspx?id=131&srcID=2&srcTarget=Department. You will notice that the directions provided by Crystal Star are different from Hethir's instructions on how to use the kit. I think it would be fine to do the cleanse either way, but I liked doing the whole cleanse in one cycle as prescribed by Hethir, so I followed her directions.
First of all, the cleanse did not change my Ovulation date. I O'd right on time for me, which is CD12, and it has not changed the length of my Luteal Phase time either (which is usually 16/17 days, so about as long as it gets). The herbs were not difficult to take or to remember since I did them every morning with breakfast and in the evening with dinner. I drank the last cup of tea each night in my comfy chair, which has become a nice ritual. The teas tasted okay too...they're not the tastiest, but not bad either. Then again, I am a tea drinker. You will need to get used to preparing the loose tea with a tea ball of your own (if you don't normally).
I did try my best to eat better by adding more fresh fruits and vegetables and cut out soy (I am a vegetarian and so normally eat a lot of soy products). However, I'm not convinced that soy causes me any problems as I have always felt healthier/better in general since becoming a veggie and using soy instead of ingesting meat and dairy. I also did some exfoliating this cycle but didn't have/make time for the massages she suggests except once, which woud have been nice to add.

What I did notice was different this cycle, is that my hormonally related symptoms seemed much less, and much better in general. I usually have really awful PMS and even raging symptoms during the 2ww, but in this cycle everything felt toned down and was simply not that noticeable. My breasts hurt less, I had less bloating, and I felt less cranky. I have been recording my symptoms for over a year now and in this cycle I had less symptoms than in any other cycle preceeding it. It has certainly been more comfortable for me and it leads me to hope/believe that perhaps the herbs have done a good job of cleansing and basically regulating my wacky hormones somewhat. I have also been a little more "regular" and I believe I had more Cervical Fluid throughout my entire cycle, which could be a function of the cleansing or just hormonally related.

I would ultimately recommend the Fertility Cleanse Kit because it has had a positive impact on me physically and because it helped me to feel that I was doing something good for myself (self-care) and to feel as though I have prepared my body more fully for a future pregnancy. I did not have severe conditions to deal with however, as my cycles are very regular, so I can't comment on it from that perspective. But for some mild hormonal issues, I feel like this has benefited me.

I am really ready to move on to Cycle #20 and am hoping THIS will be our cycle!

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Male Factor IF Studies

I have been collecting studies and journal articles about male infertility issues for awhile. Our male factor problems with honey's sperm are DNA damage (23-25%DFI = fair) and really low morphology (2% normal forms with Kruger Strict). I decided to put what I have collected into two categories...those that concern and create more anxiety for me and those that give me some hope. Our RE thinks our miscarriages (3) are related to the sperm issues. What I notice is that the bad news seems more related to DNA damage than poor morphology. And the good news is related to morphology. My thinking: since our morphology is worse than our DNA issue, we still have a "shot" at having a sticky, healthy baby. How many times will we have to try? I don't know. I'm looking for any glimmer of hope out there.




Summary of Male Factor Studies-Articles

Concerning/Challenging Studies:

1. Sperm DNA damage is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss after IVF and ICSI: systematic review and meta-analysis
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/2663.abstract



Summary: Doing a meta-analysis of 11 studies, they conclude that DNA damage greatly increases the risk of pregnancy loss.

2. Sperm DNA fragmentation: paternal effect on early post-implantation embryo development in ART
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2876.full

Summary: Risk of pregnancy loss is increased with DNA Fragmentation. However, poor morphology and other semen parameters did not increase/predict pregnancy loss. Therefore, DNA damage is more predictive of pregnancy loss.

3. Male Factor Infertility Blog
http://www.malefactorinfertility.info/2009/12/sperm-morphology-most-important.html

With IVF/ICSI, poor sperm morphology has been associated with normal fertilization rates but higher rates of spontaneous abortion.

4. Permanent Link to Sperm DNA Damage Linked To Increased Risk of Pregnancy Loss after IVF and ICSI
http://www.ivfnewsdirect.com/?p=106

Recent research provides evidence that sperm DNA damage may be associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion.

5. SCSA Predicts Male Fertility: Zouves Fertility Center
http://www.goivf.com/news/newsletter.php4?vol=4

Comparing the poor category (over 30% DFI) relative to the excellent category (under 15%DFI), the blastocyst rate is about half, the pregnancy rate is reduced by 2/3 and the spontaneous abortion rate is doubled.


Hopeful/Promising Studies:

1. A Retrospective Comparison of Pregnancy Outcome Following Conventional Oocyte Insemination vs Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection for Isolated Abnormalities in Sperm Morphology Using Strict Criteria
http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/content/full/28/4/607

Summary: Sperm with poor morphology but other parameters normal had a lower rate of fertilization w/regular insemination than that with IVF and ICSI, but pregnancy and delivery was more successful w/regular inseminations: 50%.

2. Inferility Blog
http://infertilityblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/sperm-morphology-new-guidelines.html

Quotes: “Any morphology over 3% is considered normal. If your doctor tells you otherwise, ask him if he has seen the new WHO guidelines." "To take it one step farther, can there really be a difference between 4% and 2%? I doubt that there is a difference between having 96% abnormally shaped sperm and 98% abnormally shaped sperm. So as I have said before, at our practice here at NYU, morphology is not considered with much respect, except in some rare cases where the sperm is unusually abnormal.”

3. Evaluation of Sperm Morphology Using Kruger's Strict Criteria
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/01485019208987674

Summary: There were no statistically significant differences found in pregnancy rates in partners of men with normal morphology of ≤4% vs. those with 14% or greater. The retrospective analysis showed a 50% pregnancy rate in the group with ≤4% morphology scores vs. 67% in >14% group. The 56% success rate in the men with normal morphology ≤4% reduces the significance of the diagnosis of sperm morphology using the new strict criteria.

4. SCSA Predicts Male Fertility: Zouves Fertility Center

http://www.thenewjerseymaleinfertilitycenter.com/sperm_detection_cases.php#morphology

Case 1: Man w/normal WHO morph but only 2% Kruger. “Many couples in my own infertility practice have a severe abnormality when the sperm morphology is assessed by Strict Morphology, a normal morphology by WHO criteria, and achieve pregnancies with IUI alone.”

Case 2: “Since the initial research on the Strict Morphology criteria (1980s) there has been a great deal of controversy about their true reliability. If this (abnormal morph with Strict Kruger) is the only abnormality that is seen in the semen analysis, I generally suggest re-assessment of the semen using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. If the morphology is normal using WHO criteria, I consider the man to have a potential mild to moderate male factor which I usually treat with intrauterine inseminations (with good results)."