Cumulative Live-Birth Rates by Maternal Age after One or Multiple In Vitro Fertilization Cycles: An Institutional Experience.
Assisted Reproductive Techniques
Live Birth Pregnancy Rate
Maternal Age
Multiple Pregnancy
Journal
International journal of fertility & sterility
ISSN: 2008-076X
Titre abrégé: Int J Fertil Steril
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101487941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
21
01
2019
accepted:
03
08
2019
entrez:
1
3
2020
pubmed:
1
3
2020
medline:
1
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this retrospective study is to investigate the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) following one or more completed In this retrospective study, five hundred forty-seven women who received 736 fresh ovarian stimulation/embryo transfer cycles between January 2016 and December 2016 were included in the study at a tertiary care center located in Lebanon. In all women, the live birth rate for the first cycle was 33.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 27.8-38.2]. The CLBR showed an increase with each successive fresh cycle to reach 56.9% (95% CI: 51.2-62.4) after 3 cycles and 67.9% (95% CI: of 62.5-73.0) after 6 cycles. The CLBR following 6 cycles reached 69.9% (95% CI: 63.8-75.6) in women younger than 35 years. In women older than 40 years, however, the live birth rate for the first cycle was significantly low at 3.1% (95% CI: 0.3-9.5) with a plateau in success rates after 4 cycles reaching 21.9% (95% CI: 9.2-40.0). Couples with different types of infertility had CLBRs ranging from 65% to 72%, with the exception of women with low ovarian reserve, where CLBRs reached 29.4% (95% CI: 10.3-56.0). The CLBR at a referral center in a Middle Eastern country reached 67.9 % after 6 cycles, with variations by age and type of infertility treatment. These findings are encouraging for patients insisting to extend their treatment beyond 4 to 5 cycles.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this retrospective study is to investigate the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) following one or more completed
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective study, five hundred forty-seven women who received 736 fresh ovarian stimulation/embryo transfer cycles between January 2016 and December 2016 were included in the study at a tertiary care center located in Lebanon.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In all women, the live birth rate for the first cycle was 33.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 27.8-38.2]. The CLBR showed an increase with each successive fresh cycle to reach 56.9% (95% CI: 51.2-62.4) after 3 cycles and 67.9% (95% CI: of 62.5-73.0) after 6 cycles. The CLBR following 6 cycles reached 69.9% (95% CI: 63.8-75.6) in women younger than 35 years. In women older than 40 years, however, the live birth rate for the first cycle was significantly low at 3.1% (95% CI: 0.3-9.5) with a plateau in success rates after 4 cycles reaching 21.9% (95% CI: 9.2-40.0). Couples with different types of infertility had CLBRs ranging from 65% to 72%, with the exception of women with low ovarian reserve, where CLBRs reached 29.4% (95% CI: 10.3-56.0).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The CLBR at a referral center in a Middle Eastern country reached 67.9 % after 6 cycles, with variations by age and type of infertility treatment. These findings are encouraging for patients insisting to extend their treatment beyond 4 to 5 cycles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32112633
doi: 10.22074/ijfs.2020.5855
pmc: PMC7139227
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
34-40Informations de copyright
Copyright© by Royan Institute. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1506-12
pubmed: 17376819
Hum Reprod. 2011 Aug;26(8):2239-46
pubmed: 21659314
Hum Reprod. 2013 May;28(5):1375-90
pubmed: 23442757
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015 Jul;31(7):501-5
pubmed: 26177098
BMJ. 2010 Dec 21;341:c6945
pubmed: 21177530
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012 Apr 27;10:35
pubmed: 22541043
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6(3):145-9
pubmed: 25374657
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 28;366(26):2483-91
pubmed: 22738098
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017 May;46(5):411-416
pubmed: 28428123
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015 Mar;31(3):233-6
pubmed: 25414079
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 15;360(3):236-43
pubmed: 19144939
Fertil Steril. 2012 Apr;97(4):886-9
pubmed: 22265036
Fertil Steril. 2005 Jul;84(1):99-107
pubmed: 16009164
Int J Endocrinol. 2016;2016:4987436
pubmed: 27651794
Fertil Steril. 2005 Aug;84(2):435-45
pubmed: 16084887
Hum Reprod Update. 2002 Mar-Apr;8(2):141-54
pubmed: 12099629
Adv Ther. 2018 Nov;35(11):1805-1815
pubmed: 30311070
Hum Reprod. 2016 Mar;31(3):572-81
pubmed: 26783243
JAMA. 2015 Dec 22-29;314(24):2654-2662
pubmed: 26717030
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 May;28(5):572-81
pubmed: 24631167
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2006 Jan;22(1):25-30
pubmed: 16522530
Fertil Steril. 2010 Sep;94(4):1334-40
pubmed: 19596309
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Jan;80(1):71-3
pubmed: 11167193
Fertil Steril. 2013 Jun;99(7):1958-64
pubmed: 23517858
Hum Reprod. 2015 Dec;30(12):2703-7
pubmed: 26466912
Fertil Steril. 2002 Jul;78(1):40-6
pubmed: 12095488
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;22(3):189-92
pubmed: 20216414
Fertil Steril. 2002 Mar;77(3):505-10
pubmed: 11872203
Hum Reprod. 2010 Jan;25(1):110-7
pubmed: 19837684
Hum Reprod. 2004 Jul;19(7):1548-53
pubmed: 15205397
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jul;31(7):1588-609
pubmed: 27207175
Hum Reprod. 2007 Sep;22(9):2455-62
pubmed: 17636281
Hum Reprod. 1996 Feb;11(2):425-8
pubmed: 8671236