4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

High rates of embryo wastage with use of assisted reproductive technology: a look at the trends between 1995 and 2001 in the United States

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 84, Issue 2, Pages 325-330

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.04.020

Keywords

assisted reproductive technology; in vitro fertilization; embryo selection; embryo transfer; delivery rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine what percentage of embryos achieved through assisted reproductive technology (ART) do not result in a live birth and to examine the relationships among the number of embryos transferred, infants delivered, and embryos wasted. Design: Retrospective correlational study of the U.S. summary data of ART results for the years of 1995-2001. Patient(s): Fertility clinics reporting data to the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Statistics for ART cycles using fresh, nondonor eggs and embryos were derived, and the percentage of embryos wasted each year was calculated. Trends over time were evaluated for percent embryos wasted, the average number of embryos transferred, and the delivery per transfer rate. Correlations between these variables were analysed. Result(s): The percentage of embryos transferred that did not produce a live birth was 90.8 in 1995 and decreased to 84.9 in 2001. This trend significantly correlated with a reduction in the number of embryos transferred (from 3.9 to 3.1) and with an improvement in delivery rate per transfer (25% to 33.4%). Conclusion(s): The vast majority of embryos produced in vitro and transferred fail to develop into an infant, supporting the concept that only a small fraction of embryos has the capacity to become a live birth. Clinicians should strive to reduce embryonic wastage without an adverse effect on delivery rates by perfecting methods of ovarian stimulation and embryo screening, and by transferring fewer embryos.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available