General anesthesia with propofol during oocyte retrieval and in vitro fertilization outcomes: retrospective cohort study

Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 8021 (2023) Cite this article

330 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

General anesthesia is frequently administered during oocyte retrieval. Its effects on the outcomes of IVF cycles are uncertain. This study investigated whether administration of general anesthesia (specifically propofol) during oocyte retrieval affects IVF outcomes. A total of 245 women undergoing IVF cycles were included in this retrospective cohort study. IVF outcomes of 129 women who underwent oocyte retrieval under propofol anesthesia and 116 without anesthesia were compared. Data were adjusted for age, BMI, estradiol on triggering day and total gonadotropin dose. The primary outcomes were fertilization, pregnancy and live birth rates. A secondary outcome was the efficiency of follicle retrieval associated with the use of anesthesia. Fertilization rate was lower in retrievals under anesthesia compared to without (53.4% ± 34.8 vs. 63.7% ± 33.6, respectively; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the ratio of expected to retrieved oocytes between retrievals with and without anesthesia (0.8 ± 0.4 vs. 0.8 ± 0.8, respectively, p = 0.96). The differences in pregnancy and live birth rates between the groups were not statistically significant. General anesthesia administered during oocyte retrieval may have adverse effects on the fertilization potential of oocytes. This impact on the developmental potential of oocytes may lead to negative IVF outcomes and should be investigated further.

Oocyte retrieval is an important component of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Although minimally invasive, the procedure is painful. Therefore, it is usually performed under anesthesia1.

General anesthesia may affect IVF outcomes indirectly through systemic hemodynamic and biochemical changes and directly through its effects on oocytes. Significant decreases in blood pressure have been reported 2 min after induction of anesthesia2. Consequently, perfusion to the follicles and the endometrium is decreased. Significant decreases in hemoglobin concentration and plasma cortisol level, and increased blood glucose were observed 30 min after anesthesia induction3. Intravenous propofol, with short induction and recovery times, is the drug of choice for oocyte retrieval performed under sedation. Despite its favorable pharmacokinetic properties and safety profile, animal studies have shown that it can affect early embryonic development4,5,6. Propofol can accumulate in the follicular fluid and even brief exposure led to deleterious effects on subsequent cleavage events of mouse oocytes4. Another group demonstrated that exposure of metaphase II mouse oocytes to propofol significantly reduced the rate of sperm fusion5. Only a few human studies have been reported7,8,9. These results led us to investigate the possible effects of propofol exposure during human oocyte retrieval on the developmental potential of oocytes.

The current study assessed whether general anesthesia with propofol during oocyte retrieval had a negative impact on the fertilization rate of oocytes, the clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer (ET) and the live birth rate.

The study was performed at a tertiary, university-affiliated medical center from November 2017 through December 2019. November 2017 was chosen as the starting point because the anesthesia department transitioned to an electronic medical record system at that time. Demographics, cycle treatment and anesthesia parameters and outcomes of IVF treatment were collected from patients' electronic medical records.

Patient data from women 18 to 45 years old undergoing a fresh cycle of IVF treatment were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with chronic inflammatory disease, vascular disease or presentation of acute illness during IVF cycle were not included. A total of 245 fresh IVF cycles were included in the analysis, of which 129 oocytes were retrieved under general anesthesia and 116 without anesthesia. Patients were matched for age and date of retrieval.

Trigger injections were administrated when the leading follicle was ≥ 17–18 mm, with adequate estradiol levels. For ovulation triggering, either GnRH-a 0.2 mg decapeptyl (0.1 mg, 105 µg triptorelin acetate, Ferring, Germany) or r-hCG 250 mcg (Ovitrelle, 250 µg Choriogonadotropin alfa, Merck Serono S.A., Switzerland) was used, according to the E2 level and risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Oocyte retrieval was performed 36 h after triggering.

Patients treated in our unit were able to choose between undergoing oocyte retrieval with or without anesthesia, according to their preference. Patients undergoing the procedure with anesthesia were evaluated preoperatively by an anesthesiologist. The following anesthesia data were obtained from patients' electronic medical records: duration (min), dosage (mg), peripheral capillary oxygen saturation and mean arterial pressure. All patients undergoing oocyte retrieval with anesthesia fasted for at least 8 h before the procedure. They were monitored using noninvasive arterial pressure, continuous electrocardiogram, and pulse oximetry. The airway was maintained using an oxygen mask only. In rare cases, where patient characteristics suggested a high aspiration risk or when mask ventilation only was inadequate, a laryngeal mask or endotracheal tube was employed. A peripheral venous 20/22-gauge catheter was placed. Fentanyl (100 mcg) was administered for analgesia. Propofol (1–2 mg/kg) was administered for induction, with additional IV boluses according to the duration of the procedure, level of sedation and maintenance of anesthesia.

If hypotension occurred, it was usually transient and resolved spontaneously, or was treated with vasoactive medications such as phenylephrine (100 mcg boluses) or ephedrine (5 mg boluses), at the anesthesiologist's discretion.

Patients without anesthesia were not treated with analgesic medications during the retrieval. If requested, they received analgesics, mostly intravenous or oral paracetamol (1 g) in the recovery room.

The primary outcomes were fertilization rate, pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Fertilization rate was calculated as the number of normal fertilized oocytes among inseminated or injected oocytes. Pregnancy rate was calculated based on cycles that resulted in ET only. Live birth rate was calculated from cycles that resulted in pregnancy.

A secondary outcome was the efficiency of follicle retrieval associated with the use of anesthesia. This was calculated based on the ratio of expected oocytes to retrieved oocytes. The number of expected oocytes (follicle size ≥ 10) was extracted from sonographic examination records.

Embryos were graded from one to four, based on percentage of fragmentation and cell counts: grade 4, equal-size symmetrical cells with no fragmentation; grade 3, equal-size symmetrical cells with less than 10% fragmentation; grade 2, non-symmetrical blastomeres with 10–50% fragmentation; and grade 1, more than 50% fragmentation. ET was accomplished on day 3 after oocyte collection. Serum β-hCG was measured 12 days after ET. Transvaginal ultrasound was performed 2 weeks later to confirm a viable pregnancy. Clinical pregnancy was defined as the presence of an intrauterine gestational sac with fetal cardiac activity.

Data were analyzed using SPSS v.25.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive parameters are expressed as mean ± SD. Frequencies are presented as percentages. The student t-test was used to compare continuous parameters and the chi-square test was used to analyze categorical parameters. Linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of the variables on fertilization rate. Pearson and Spearman correlations were used for anesthetic parameters and IVF outcomes. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical tests were two-tailed.

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

The study was approved by the Meir Medical Center Ethics Committee, affiliated with the Sackler faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University, Israel. The requirement for informed consent from the study subjects was waived by the IRB Helsinki Committee due to the retrospective nature of the study.

A total of 245 fresh IVF cycles were included in the analysis, of which 129 oocytes were retrieved under general anesthesia and 116 were retrieved without anesthesia. The main demographic, baseline and treatment characteristics are presented in Table 1. There were no significant differences between patient groups in terms of age, BMI and indications for treatment. Male factor was the indication in 43% of patients undergoing oocyte retrieval with anesthesia versus 41% in patients without anesthesia. Basal FSH was lower for patients undergoing oocyte retrieval with anesthesia compared to patients undergoing retrieval without anesthesia (p = 0.02). The total dosage of gonadotropins or triggering agent was similar between the two groups. However, estradiol blood levels and expected number of oocytes were higher in retrievals under anesthesia compared to retrievals without anesthesia (p < 0.01 for both). Among women who did not use anesthesia, 53% chose to undergo their next procedure without anesthesia.

Oocyte retrieval and clinical outcomes are shown in Table 2. The total quantity of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in oocyte retrievals with anesthesia compared to retrievals without anesthesia (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the percentage of mature oocytes obtained from each group. Fertilization rate was lower in retrievals under anesthesia compared to those without (53.4% ± 34.8 vs. 63.7% ± 33.6 respectively, p = 0.02). There was a trend toward lower rate of pregnancies resulting in delivery among retrievals under anesthesia compared to without anesthesia (66.7% vs. 85.0%, p = 0.13). Spontaneous abortion occurred in 28.2% of pregnancies with oocytes retrieved under anesthesia compared to 15.0% without anesthesia (p = 0.26). The delivery and abortion rates were similar between groups.

When patient data were adjusted for age, BMI, estradiol on triggering day and total gonadotropin dosage, there was no significant difference in the ratio of expected to retrieved oocytes between retrievals with and without anesthesia (0.8 ± 0.4 vs. 0.8 ± 0.8, respectively, p = 0.96). Anesthesia parameters are shown in Table 3. A further analysis to examine the possible association between anesthesia parameters and IVF outcomes did not find any associations between desaturation events, lower mean non-invasive blood pressure, duration of anesthesia, propofol dosage and IVF outcomes, such as fertilization rate, embryo quality and pregnancy rate.

This retrospective cohort study examined the effects of general anesthesia with propofol during oocyte retrieval, on oocyte fertilization, embryo development and implantation. Propofol is widely used for intravenous induction of anesthesia in assisted reproduction. It is highly lipophilic with quick onset and short, predictable duration of action due to its rapid penetration of the blood–brain barrier and distribution to the central nervous system10. A steady increase in propofol levels proportional to the total dose administered was found in follicular fluid11. Accumulation of propofol in follicular fluid may adversely affect oocyte fertilization and embryonic development. This negative effect may be attributed to the ability of propofol to effect the oocyte-plasma membrane, as significant decreases in the rate of sperm fusion, as well as in pronuclei and polar body formation were observed in mouse oocytes exposed to propofol, compared to controls5. Propofol also causes hypotension and rarely, intraoperative desaturation. A prospective study observed higher oxygen consumption rates for human oocytes undergoing normal fertilization compared with nonfertilized or abnormal oocytes12. The same study also reported higher oxygen consumption rates among oocytes that generated embryos that implanted, compared with those that did not. Intraoperative desaturation impairs oxygen delivery to oocytes. Decreased oxygen for consumption may be another explanation for sub-optimal fertilization, embryo development and implantation after propofol exposure.

The information reported here suggests that general anesthesia during oocyte retrieval reduces oocyte fertilization rates. Fertilization rate was reported as an indicator of cumulative live birth rate13; highlighting the significance of our findings. Potential mechanisms for the negative effect of propofol on oocyte fertilization include direct effects of oolemma perturbation and indirect effects of impaired perfusion to oocytes due to hemodynamic changes. In contrast to the results reported here, a few studies investigated the effect of anesthesia, specifically propofol and reported no effect on IVF outcomes14. However, the patients in these studies differed from those in the current investigation. Two studies compared the use of propofol to thiopental and one study compared it to isoflurane15,16,17. A review by Sharma et al., reported inconclusive findings regarding the effect of anesthesia on IVF outcomes, which could be attributed to differences in study designs, drugs and protocols used18. The current study compared propofol use to no anesthesia, which enabled us to assess the effect of propofol, more clearly.

A randomized controlled study found no significant differences in fertilization rates between high- and low-dose propofol but the clinical pregnancy rate in the high-dose group was significantly lower7.

The lower fertilization rate found in the anesthesia group suggests that it was negatively affected above a threshold level of propofol exposure. In addition, the effect may be all-or-none, rather than dose-dependent.

Another aspect to consider is the use of analgesia. Fentanyl was also administrated to the anesthesia group and may have contributed to the lower fertilization rate. Steady increases in fentanyl concentration in follicular fluid up to 25 min after an IV bolus dose have been reported19,20. However, another study reported that fentanyl and remifentanil, do not decrease IVF success rates21.

In the current study, patients who were not exposed to anesthesia were slightly older than those who were. They had fewer oocytes expected to be retrieved according to their last ultrasound follicle count, and higher estrogen and FSH levels before triggering. Given these baseline characteristics, this group of patients was expected to have poorer IVF outcomes. Nevertheless, their oocyte fertilization rate was higher. This information may influence patient consultations regarding anesthesia during oocyte retrieval.

We also evaluated the effects of anesthesia-associated parameters, such as desaturation events and anesthesia duration, on IVF outcomes. Desaturation events decrease perfusion to the endometrium and may influence its receptivity to embryo implantation19,22. While some studies reported lower implantation rates per transferred embryo and pregnancies per cycle, with lower uterine artery blood flow22,23, others did not find differences in implantation and pregnancy rates with low, medium or high uterine artery blood flow24,25. We did not find negative effects from desaturation events or longer duration of anesthesia, or lower mean non-invasive blood pressure, on IVF outcomes. However, a trend toward lower pregnancy and delivery rates was observed among patients who underwent anesthesia. The results suggest an additional possible all-or-none effect of anesthesia on embryo implantation and development.

This study was limited by its retrospective nature. Anesthesia administration was not randomized, but based on patient preference. Patients with low follicle counts, expecting short retrieval procedures may be more likely to waive anesthesia. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with this potential selection bias in mind and not extrapolated to the general population undergoing IVF. Furthermore, the possible contribution of fentanyl cannot be dismissed and should be investigated in future studies.

Previous studies examined the effects of other anesthetic or analgesic agents. However, most did not have a control group of patients who were not treated with sedatives, anesthesia or analgesic agents. Therefore, the effect of general anesthesia on IVF outcomes cannot be extrapolated from them. An additional strength of our study is the control group of patients who did not use any type of pain control medication during the retrieval.

A secondary outcome measure was the efficiency of follicle retrieval associated with anesthesia, measured as the ratio of retrieved oocytes to the number recorded at the last ultrasonogram before triggering. We hypothesized that without anesthesia, the operator may be more likely to forgo small follicles due to patient discomfort. Our results showed no difference in the efficiency of small follicle retrieval according to anesthesia use. This may reassure women who do not want anesthesia that this decision will not affect the efficiency of follicle retrieval. We also found that 53% of patients who underwent another IVF cycle chose not to use anesthesia. Given that anesthesia is very accessible and affordable in Israel, we consider this a relatively high percentage of patients waiving anesthesia. This may be due to concerns regarding potential complications of general anesthesia26, as well as its potential effects on oocyte quality. On the other hand, the use of anesthesia for oocyte retrieval is still routine practice in IVF. In addition to patient comfort, it is considered necessary for optimal performance of the retrieval and to avoid complications such as hemorrhage or injury to adjacent structures27. In our experience, careful patient selection and detailed discussion with patients, enables the physician to perform the procedure accurately and safely without anesthesia, along with good patient satisfaction.

In conclusion, we found that oocytes retrieved under general anesthesia had significantly lower fertilization rates than did those retrieved without anesthesia. This effect on the developmental potential of oocytes may lead to negative IVF outcomes and should be investigated further. However, these results may reassure and even encourage patients who are considering oocyte retrieval without general anesthesia.

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Ejaimi, G. A., Alhindi, M. E. & Saeed, S. Anesthesia and assisted reproductive technology: A literature review. Sudan Med. Monitor 11, 129 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Claeys, M. A., Gepts, E. & Camu, F. Haemodynamic changes during anaesthesia induced and maintained with propofol. Br. J. Anaesth. 60, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/60.1.3 (1988).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Sear, J. W., Uppington, J. & Kay, N. H. Haematological and biochemical changes during anaesthesia with propofol (‘Diprivan’). Postgrad. Med. J. 61(Suppl 3), 165–168 (1985).

PubMed Google Scholar

Janssenswillen, C., Christiaens, F., Camu, F. & Van Steirteghem, A. The effect of propofol on parthenogenetic activation, in vitro fertilization and early development of mouse oocytes. Fertil. Steril. 67, 769–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(97)81381-7 (1997).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Tatone, C. et al. An evaluation of propofol toxicity on mouse oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod. 13, 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.2.430 (1998).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Alsalili, M., Thornton, S. & Fleming, S. The effect of the anaesthetic, propofol, on in-vitro oocyte maturation, fertilization and cleavage in mice. Hum. Reprod. 12, 1271–1274. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.6.1271 (1997).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Zitta, M. et al. Deleterious impact of propofol on in vitro fertilization. A prospective randomized trial. Fertil. Steril. 100, S11 (2013).

Article Google Scholar

Petrini, A., Pereira, N. & Spandorfer, S. The effect of propofol dosage during oocyte retrieval on in vitro fertilization outcomes. Fertil. Steril. 106, e345 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Meyer, L., Lekovic, J., Reichman, D., Chung, P. & Rosenwaks, Z. The effect of anesthesia during embryo transfer on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil. Steril. 100, S526–S527 (2013).

Article Google Scholar

Kanto, J. & Gepts, E. Pharmacokinetic implications for the clinical use of propofol. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 17, 308–326. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-198917050-00002 (1989).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Coetsier, T. et al. Propofol anaesthesia for ultrasound guided oocyte retrieval: Accumulation of the anaesthetic agent in follicular fluid. Hum. Reprod. 7, 1422–1424. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137586 (1992).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Tejera, A. et al. Oxygen consumption is a quality marker for human oocyte competence conditioned by ovarian stimulation regimens. Fertil. Steril. 96(618–623), e612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.059 (2011).

Article Google Scholar

Scaravelli, G. et al. Fertilization rate as a novel indicator for cumulative live birth rate: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 9,394 complete in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil. Steril. 116, 766–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.04.006 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Guasch, E., Gómez, R., Brogly, N. & Gilsanz, F. Anesthesia and analgesia for transvaginal oocyte retrieval. Should we recommend or avoid any anesthetic drug or technique?. Curr. Opin. Anesthesiol. 32, 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1097/aco.0000000000000715 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Vincent, R. D. et al. An evaluation of the effect of anesthetic technique on reproductive success after laparoscopic pronuclear stage transfer: Propofol/nitrous oxide versus isoflurane/nitrous oxide. Anesthesiology 82, 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199502000-00005 (1995).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Pierce, E. T. et al. Comparison of pregnancy rates following gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) under general anesthesia with thiopental sodium or propofol. J. Clin. Anesth. 4, 394–398 (1992).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Huang, H. et al. Effects of induction anesthetic agents on outcome of assisted reproductive technology: A comparison of propofol and thiopental sodium. Chang. Gung. Med. J. 23, 513–519 (2000).

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Sharma, A., Borle, A. & Trikha, A. Anesthesia for in vitro fertilization. J. Obstetr. Anaesth. Crit. Care 5, 62 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

Bovenschen, J. L. & Lawrence, K. A. Remifentanil and Fenantyl Concentrations in Follicular Fluid during Transvaginal Oocyte Retrieval (1998).

Soussis, I. et al. Follicular fluid levels of midazolam, fentanyl, and alfentanil during transvaginal oocyte retrieval. Fertil. Steril. 64, 1003–1007 (1995).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Wilhelm, W., Biedler, A., Hammadeh, M., Fleser, R. & Grüness, V. Remifentanil for oocyte retrieval: A new single-agent monitored anaesthesia care technique. Anaesthesist 48, 698–704 (1999).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Cacciatore, B., Simberg, N., Fusaro, P. & Tiitinen, A. Transvaginal Doppler study of uterine artery blood flow in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil. Steril. 66, 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58400-3 (1996).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Steer, C. V. et al. The use of transvaginal color flow imaging after in vitro fertilization to identify optimum uterine conditions before embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 57, 372–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54848-1 (1992).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Tekay, A., Martikainen, H. & Jouppila, P. Blood flow changes in uterine and ovarian vasculature, and predictive value of transvaginal pulsed colour Doppler ultrasonography in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum. Reprod. 10, 688–693. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136013 (1995).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Aytoz, A. et al. The predictive value of uterine artery blood flow measurements for uterine receptivity in an intracytoplasmic sperm injection program. Fertil. Steril. 68, 935–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(97)00333-6 (1997).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Gilboa, D. et al. Why do women choose to undergo oocyte aspiration without sedation or analgesia?. Reprod. Fertil. 2, 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1530/RAF-20-0064 (2021).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kwan, I., Wang, R., Pearce, E. & Bhattacharya, S. Pain relief for women undergoing oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 5, CD004829. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004829.pub4 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Faye Schreiber, MS edited the manuscript. She is an employee of Meir Medical Center.

These authors contributed equally: Einat Haikin Herzberger and Omri Levy.

IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel

Einat Haikin Herzberger, Netanella Miller, Roni Rahav, Shaul Raviv & Amir Wiser

Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

Einat Haikin Herzberger, Omri Levy, Bei Sun, Netanella Miller, Roni Rahav, Elad Dana, Shaul Raviv & Amir Wiser

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel

Elad Dana

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah Mt. Scopus medical center, Faculty of medicine, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Anat Hershko-Klement

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

E.H.H., O.L., B.S., N.M., R.R., E.D., A.K.H., A.W.—participation in study design, execution, analysis and manuscript drafting.S.R.—participation in study design, execution, and manuscript revising.All authors reviewed the manuscript and gave final approval of the version to be published.

Correspondence to Einat Haikin Herzberger.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Haikin Herzberger, E., Levy, O., Sun, B. et al. General anesthesia with propofol during oocyte retrieval and in vitro fertilization outcomes: retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep 13, 8021 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35224-2

Download citation

Received: 24 December 2022

Accepted: 15 May 2023

Published: 17 May 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35224-2

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.