Study: Second hand smoking is as damaging to IVF success as being a smoker

[CFLarsen]

It has been known for some time that smoking can affect a woman's fertility, but Canadian research published today (Thursday 26 May) in Europe's leading reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction1 suggests that exposure to side-stream smoking – smoke given off by a smouldering cigarette2 - is just as damaging.



In a study of women undergoing IVF or ICSI3, researchers from McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, in Hamilton, Ontario, examined the quality of embryos and the implantation and pregnancy rates of 225 women who were grouped according to whether they were non-smokers, smokers or side-stream smokers4 – side-stream smokers being defined as women who lived with a partner who regularly smoked.



They found no difference in the quality of the embryos from the three groups. But, there was a striking difference in implantation and pregnancy rates between the non-smoking group and the smokers and side-stream smokers.

Full story (http://www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=627)

[NoZed Avenger]

It was possible, he said, that cigarette smoke compromised the competence of the egg, perhaps by disrupting the proliferation of the granulosa cells in the egg follicle and their production of the oestrogen-producing enzyme aromatase, but that the lethal results were not apparent until later in embryonic development. However, this was still only speculation.



Cannot find the original stats on-line. I wonder if they controlled for the fact that people living with smokers are disproportionately smokers or ex-smokers themselves?

[BobK]

Seems to me like a pathetically small study. Might also be cherry-picking. They used 146 in one group, 39 and 40 in the other groups. I find it hard to believe they couldn't come up with better balance in the groupings.
The 39 smokers in the study smoked a mean of 11 cigarettes a day. Their partners smoked a mean of 10.7 a day (8 were non-smokers). Of the 40 side-stream smokers, the male partners smoked a mean of 10.8 cigarettes a day. 146 women were non-smokers (i.e. neither they nor their partners smoked).

Looks to me like they could also say that actually smoking had no effect. The partners in groups 39 and 40 generated equal side-stream smoke yet the pregnancy figures for both groups are about the same. Something sure doesn't seem right. Actually smoking had no effect?

I find it rather curious that they refer to "partners" of the smokers and then specifically say "male partners" for the side-stream smokers. Which group had the female/female partnerships and how many?

I frankly think the study isn't worth the electrons it's written with.