4.6 Article

The expected cumulative incidence of live birth for patients starting IVF treatment at age 41 years or older

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 533-541

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.08.014

Keywords

Advanced maternal age; Cumulative live birth rate; IVF

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research question: What is the cumulative incidence of live birth (CILB) for high-order consecutive IVF cycles, and which factors are associated with live birth in women aged >= 41 years using autologous oocytes? Design: A retrospective cohort study including 146 patients aged 41 years to <44 years who started their first IVF cycle attempt using autologous oocytes, between January 2006 and December 2013. Results: After 13 IVF cycles, CILB reached up to 33.6%. After six IVF cycles, 42 (28.8%) women delivered a live infant (85.7% of the total live birth). Mean live birth rate per cycle declined with age at the initial cycle (8% at 41 years; 5.8% at 42 years; and 4.1% at 43 years). Multivariable modified Poisson regression models identified patient's age (RR for 41 years versus 43 years: 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87; P = 0.01), smoking status (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.08; P = 0.02), and mean number of fertilized oocytes (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; P < 0.01) as factors significantly associated with the probability of a live birth. Conclusions: Multiple repeat IVF cycles in women aged 41-44 years offers a reasonable long-term success rate. After six cycles of treatment, about 29% of women of advanced reproductive age using autologous oocytes expected to achieve a live birth. This information might assist in fertility counselling and managing patients' expectations by adjusting the appropriate treatment strategy and number of IVF cycle attempts, especially in countries in which egg donation is prohibited or when multiple repeated IVF cycles attempts are financially affordable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available