4.4 Article

National trends and outcomes of autologous in vitro fertilization cycles among women ages 40 years and older

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-017-0926-2

关键词

In vitro fertilization (IVF); Infertility; Older women; 40 years and over

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of the study was to describe trends in and investigate variables associated with clinical pregnancy and live birth in autologous in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles among women >= 40 years. Methods We used autologous IVF cycle data from the National ART Surveillance System (NASS) for women >= 40 years at cycle start. We assessed trends in fresh and frozen cycles (n = 371,536) from 1996 to 2013. We reported perinatal outcomes and determined variables associated with clinical pregnancy and live birth in fresh cycles between 2007 and 2013. Results From 1996 to 2013, the total number of cycles in women >= 40 years increased from 8672 to 28,883 (p < 0.0001), with frozen cycles almost tripling in the last 8 years. Cycles in women >= 40 years accounted for 16.0% of all cycles in 1996 and 21.0% in 2013 (p < 0.0001). For fresh cycles from 2007 to 2013 (n = 157,890), the cancelation rate was 17.1%. Among cycles resulting in transfer (n = 112,414), the live birth rate was 16.1%. The following were associated with higher live birth rates: multiparity, fewer prior ART cycles, use of standard agonist or antagonist stimulation, lower gonadotropin dose, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, more oocytes retrieved, use of pre-implantation genetic screening/diagnosis, transferring more and/or blastocyst stage embryos, and cryopreserving more supernumerary embryos. Of the singleton infants born (n = 14,992), 86.9% were full term and 88.3% normal birth weight. Conclusions The NASS allows for a comprehensive description of IVF cycles in women >= 40 years in the USA. Although live birth rate is less than 20%, identifying factors associated with IVF success can facilitate treatment option counseling.

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

4.4
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