4.2 Article

Twenty years' experience with the Swiss data registry for assisted reproductive medicine: outcomes, key trends and recommendations for improved practice

期刊

SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

E M H SWISS MEDICAL PUBLISHERS LTD
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2015.14087

关键词

assisted reproductive technology; demography; multiple births; controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; AMH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: The impact of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on Swiss demography was quantified. From 1993 to 2012 the number of deliveries, including multiples, generated by ART was compared with overall delivery numbers. Swiss experts in ART collaborated in a consensus to increase successful outcomes, to reduce the incidence of complications of ART and to validate recommendations through statistical review of available data. METHODS: Data generated between 1993 and 2012 and published by the Federal Office of Statistics (BfS) were compared with the Swiss database on ART (FIVNAT-CH) as organised by the Swiss Society of Reproductive Medicine (SGRM). From these analyses a panel of Swiss experts in ART extracted recommendations to improve current practice, to prevent complications related to ART and to recommend changes in current Swiss legislation dealing with ART. RESULTS: Since 1993 the age of women giving birth rose together with the number of women asking for ART. This demographic trend was reflected in a rise in the number of deliveries generated by ART (in 2012: 2.2%) and the proportion of multiple births (in 2012: 17.6%). The outcome of ART was most negatively influenced by the age of the treated patient. The number of retrieved oocytes decisively impacted the likelihood of delivery, the risk of multiple births and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal ovarian stimulation should be designed for the retrieval of 10 to 15 oocytes per treatment. Swiss legislation should enable and stimulate a policy of elective single embryo transfer to avoid multiple births.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据