4.6 Article

Assisted reproductive technology in Beijing, 2013-2015

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 521-532

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.08.002

关键词

Assisted reproductive technology; Beijing; ICSI; Intrauterine insemination; IVF; Outcome

资金

  1. Research Fund of National Health and Family Planning Commission of China [201402004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research question: Why are comprehensive and detailed reports of local or national utilization outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) lacking in China? Design: Retrospective collection of data on intrauterine insemination (IUI) and IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in Beijing, including all 12 registered institutions with cycles, started between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. Results: Clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) per aspiration and fresh embryo transfer were 39.1% and 43.2% in 2013, 40.1% and 45.4% in 2014, and 37.8% and 44.5% in 2015; live birth rates (LBR) per aspiration and per fresh embryo transfer were 31.7% and 35.0%, 32.3% and 36.6%, and 30.3% and 35.6%, respectively. In frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, the CPR per thawed transfer was 43.4%, 47.2% and 46.2%, respectively, resulting in LBR of 34.3%, 37.4% and 36.5%. The prevalence of multiple pregnancies was 28.0-31.3% for fresh embryo transfer, and 23.5-25.9% for FET. The LBR was 8.8-9.1% after IUI with husband or partner's semen (IUI-H), and 16.7-19.7% after IUI with donor semen (IUI-D). The birth defect rate among live born infants was 1.52%, 0.42% and 0% after IUI-H, 1.05%, 0.39% and 0.66% after IUI-D, 0.71%, 0.56% and 0.46% after fresh embryo transfer, and 0.73%, 0.20% and 0.18% after FET in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. Conclusions: In Beijing over 3 years, the number of IVF-ICSI cycles has increased and the number of IUI cycles has decreased; IVF-ICSI outcomes are better and safer. Further effort should be made to lower the multiple pregnancy rates. A Chinese nationwide ART registry should be promoted.

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

4.6
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