- Age and Fertility
- CDC Report on Fertility Clinic IVF Success Rates
- Chromosomal Abnormalities in Eggs
- Donor Eggs
- Egg Banking
- Egg Donation
- Egg Donation Cost
- Egg Freezing
- Egg quality
- Embryo freezing
- Embryo implantation
- Fertility Preservation
- Frozen embryo transfer
- IVF Clinic Success Rates
- IVF Cost
- IVF Poor Responders
- IVF success rates
- Low ovarian reserve
- Micro IVF
- Mild IVF
- Mini IVF
- Minimal Stimulation IVF
- Number of IVF Embryos to Transfer
- Oocyte Cryopreservation
- Ovarian Reserve Tests
- Preimplantation Genetic Screening
- Single Embryo Transfer
Fertility, IVF and Egg Donation
The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) has released the 2014 IVF success rate report in 2016. The SART in vitro fertilization outcome reports have been coming out annually for over 15 years. We are proud of our consistently high success rates. We encourage people to examine both our IVF success rates and our egg donation success rates and compare them to the national averages as well as to those of other clinics they might consider.
This year’s report represents a significant change in the way the data is reported as compared to the past. SART is trying to make the report more representative of IVF outcomes as they relate to the current styles of practice in IVF centers in the US.
In the past the SART report showed the IVF outcome data on a per started cycle, per egg retrieval, and per embryo transfer basis. However, this has basically been done away with in the 2014 report. The new SART report organizes IVF outcome metrics differently.
I will review some of the main highlights of the new report using screen shots from our own clinic’s 2014 SART report that can be found online at:
The first section in the outcome tables shows what start calls the Preliminary Cumulative Outcome per Intended Egg Retrieval. The intention is to show the cumulative chance for having a baby from both the primary embryo transfer procedure and any also any subsequent embryo transfers using frozen eggs or embryos that were not transferred initially.
I think it is unfortunate that SART put this table at the top of the report. It makes it seem that this is the most important outcome metric. However, there are problems with this metric including the fact that any embryo transfers with subsequent live births that do not fall within that calendar year will not be included in the cumulative outcome.
SART is extremely focused on singleton pregnancy outcomes. Many couples with infertility are much less focused on avoiding twins. The SART report highlights the singleton line in green. I have highlighted the live birth line in red. This line shows the cumulative live birth rate per intended egg retrieval. In my opinion the live birth rate is also important for couples struggling with infertility.
The next table is referred to by SART as the Preliminary Primary Outcome per Intended Retrieval. The preliminary primary outcome is the outcome of the first embryo transfer following the egg retrieval.
- Therefore, if there is a fresh embryo transfer that is done several days after the egg retrieval that outcome would be the preliminary primary outcome.
- However, if all of the embryos from that egg retrieval were frozen and none were transferred fresh – then the first frozen embryo transfer cycle would give the preliminary primary outcome.
- If all embryos were frozen from the fresh egg retrieval and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) was performed and all PGS results were abnormal resulting in no frozen embryo transfer – then the outcome is a failed cycle at that point.
This change in outcome metrics was put into place by SART because in recent years some clinics have moved more to performing frozen embryo transfers and are doing more “freeze all” cycles. In a freeze all cycle, all embryos are frozen several days after the egg retrieval and then thawed and transferred in a subsequent cycle. I think that SART should have put this table at the top of the page.
Again, I have highlighted the live birth row which I believe is important in red in contrast to what SART is highlighting in green.
The next table is for what SART refers to as Preliminary Subsequent Outcomes (frozen cycles). SART defines this as cycles using any frozen thawed eggs or embryos after there has already been a primary outcome. So for the most part this table represents the frozen embryo transfer success rates for the clinic. However, it excludes frozen embryo transfers that would have been the primary embryo transfer (from freeze all cycles).
The next table SART calls the Preliminary Live Birth per Patient. This table is reporting outcomes only for those patients who are new to that specific clinic and starting their first cycle for egg retrieval during that year. I have no idea why SART thinks that this is an important metric and deserving of its own table.
The last 4 tables on the page of the new SART report are for donor eggs and donor embryos. There is a table for live birth outcomes using fresh donor eggs, another table for frozen donor eggs, then frozen thawed embryos from donor eggs, and finally a table for transfers using donated embryos. These tables are easier to understand because they do not follow the “preliminary” and “subsequent” outcome methodology that SART now uses for the cycles performed using a woman’s own eggs.
There are some interesting and potentially useful features built into the new report. For example, the report now allows the viewer to apply filters to the data set. For example, you can filter frozen embryo transfer cycles to see only those results that had preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) performed on the embryos. Other filters can be applied as well.
SART is an organization of medical and other professionals. SART members are from academic medical centers and also from private practice fertility clinics. SART members could be fertility doctors, nurses, embryologists, lab directors, mental health professionals, attorneys that specialize in reproductive law, and others.
SART members have different agendas depending on the details of their own organizations and business models. Therefore, SART will be pulled in different directions by members with their own agendas. Such a varied organization will never be able to please all members. The major changes in the 2014 SART report seems to have been done in an effort to satisfy some factions within the organization. However, that has led to some problems with the report.
I have been working as a fertility doctor for over 20 years and during that time have used databases and spreadsheets on a daily basis. Understandably, I am very familiar with IVF outcome measures. However, this report was confusing for me until I studied it carefully. It took some time to figure it out. Therefore, I think that this report will be very difficult (or impossible) for the average infertility patient to understand well.
If the 2014 SART report satisfies some SART members regarding their gripes about past year’s reports then maybe it serves the SART organization’s agenda. Overall, I think it is a work in progress.
Do IVF frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles have increased success rates or other benefits as compared to fresh transfers?
Over the past several years there have been several studies published that investigated whether fresh or frozen transfers result in higher IVF pregnancy success rates and also which type of transfer is associated with healthier outcomes for mothers and babies.
In fact, some IVF programs have completely stopped doing fresh embryo transfers and are only performing frozen embryo transfers. As of now (summer 2016), the IVF field in the US seems to be slowly moving toward doing more frozen embryo transfers and less fresh transfers. This might be a long-term trend that could help us achieve the most successful treatment outcomes.
There are 2 general issues related to the possible superiority of frozen embryo transfer as compared to fresh transfer.
- The rate of implantation could be reduced in fresh transfers as compared to frozen embryo transfers.
- There could be a “healthier” implantation process in FET cycles with development of a better connection between the placenta and the mother. This could potentially result in benefits at multiple levels.
Over the last 10 years or so embryo freezing and thawing efficiency has improved dramatically with widespread use of vitrification (ultra-rapid freezing) vs. the older slow freezing method. This led to much better pregnancy success rates with frozen embryos than we saw in the past. Now some fertility specialists are claiming that frozen embryo transfers actually give higher success rates than fresh transfers.
Embryo implantation with a frozen cycle could be better with the more “natural” hormone environment in the uterus. The uterine lining in a fresh cycle with ovarian stimulation is exposed to unnaturally high levels of the reproductive hormones estrogen and progesterone which could deter effective embryo implantation.
Some of the studies done so far show significantly higher pregnancy rates with frozen embryo transfers as compared to fresh embryo transfers. However, other studies have shown no significant difference in success rates between fresh and frozen transfers.
One problem is that there are several variables that are difficult to control for in order to have the proper study design to answer this question. Overall, at this point the evidence suggests that frozen transfers seem to have somewhat higher pregnancy rates as compared to fresh transfers.
Further studies should be done to confirm (or deny) this and also to investigate whether there are subsets of patients that benefit more than others by having their transfer “deferred” to a frozen cycle. It is possible that some patients would get a large increase in their chances for pregnancy with an FET and others would get little or no benefit at all. We just don’t know enough yet.
For example, several studies that have shown that IVF patients that take a “pure” Lupron trigger (without any HCG trigger) have better pregnancy rates in an FET cycle vs. with fresh transfer. However, the magnitude of the difference is debatable and in many clinics (ours included) it is a relatively small percentage of the patients that get a pure Lupron trigger.
This issue is about ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, OHSS. Mild ovarian hyperstimulation is fairly common with IVF and is not a major medical problem. It goes away fairly quickly and has no major consequences. However, severe OHSS is serious and needs to be avoided.
By utilizing a pure Lupron trigger (also called an agonist trigger) severe OHSS can be completely avoided. However, some IVF patients do not get a pure Lupron trigger (they took some HCG at trigger time) and these women might become significantly hyperstimulated if they become pregnant from a fresh embryo transfer. These women should have their embryos frozen and then later thawed and transferred (FET) after the hyperstimulated ovaries regress to normal.
Tubal pregnancy rates
There is some evidence from retrospective studies that ectopic pregnancies are more common after fresh as compared to frozen embryo transfers. For example, one study reported ectopic pregnancies occurring in 4.6% of clinical pregnancies after fresh transfers and 2.2% of clinical pregnancies after frozen transfers. Some other studies have shown smaller differences.
Obstetric and perinatal outcomes
So far, the studies on health outcomes for mothers and babies after fresh vs. frozen embryo transfers show mixed results. Overall, it seems that there might be more healthy outcomes after FET as compared to after a fresh transfer. However, more research is needed in this area. The list below summarizes results from some recent studies.
- The risk for a baby to have low birth weight is increased after fresh compared to frozen transfers (favors doing FET)
- The risk for having a preterm birth is increased after fresh compared to frozen transfers (favors doing FET).
- The risk for having placenta accreta (placenta attached deeply in uterine wall and difficult to separate at delivery) seems to be increased in frozen as compared to fresh embryo transfers (favors doing fresh transfer).
- The risk for having a large for gestational age baby seems to be increased in frozen as compared to fresh embryo transfers (favors doing fresh transfer).
There is some evidence that pregnancy rates are somewhat higher and overall outcomes may be better for pregnancies with frozen transfers compared to with fresh transfers. However, as discussed above, some of the outcome data shows pros and cons for FETs.
Other important questions are how much better will these outcomes be, and how much extra will it cost with switching from fresh embryo transfers to FETs? Then, couples (and their doctors) must decide whether that additional benefit is worth that extra cost.
That question will not have the same answer for every couple because financial resources and insurance coverage varies between couples. If patients have excellent insurance coverage that will pay for multiple cycles of fresh and frozen embryo transfers then the economic decision for a couple could be easy. However, few people have insurance coverage like that.
The debate about these issues continues in our field of medicine. There are important questions to answer and well designed studies are needed. In the meantime we try to make the best decisions with our patients on a case by case basis.
IVF patients often focus attention on the grading of their embryos at the time of transfer. We do the morphological grading on IVF embryos to assess the rate of development, the number of cells and how healthy the cells look.
However the underlying chromosomal competence or lack of chromosomal competence is far more important than the morphological grade of an embryo. Grading involves shades of gray but chromosomal competence is a black or white issue.
The beautiful looking embryo that is chromosomally abnormal is not going to make a healthy baby and an embryo that does not get a high grade but is chromosomally normal should still have a high implantation potential and be likely to result in the birth of a healthy baby after transfer to the uterus.
As far as embryos go, it’s good to be pretty but much more important to be chromosomally normal. Chromosomal competence can be determined with preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) which should be done at the blastocyst stage of embryo development with trophectoderm biopsy.
Beautiful looking blastocyst,Not as pretty looking blastocyst
The blastocyst embryos shown above look different. The embryo on the left gets a high grade and the one on the right does not. There are far less cells in this embryo and the appearance of those cells results in a lower grade.
However, if the “lower grade” embryo was tested and normal by PGS and the “high grade” one was abnormal then the lower grade embryo would be very likely to result in a healthy baby after transfer and the pretty one would have no chance.
Advancing female age results in changes in the eggs leading to more errors occurring when the egg matures at the time of ovulation. This causes an increased percentage of embryos that are chromosomally abnormal as women get older.
At age 30 the percentage of chromosomally abnormal embryos (called aneuploid) is about 30%. Beyond age 30 the rate of these abnormalities in eggs goes up significantly as shown in the table below.
|Female Age||Percent of Embryos Aneuploid|
With genetic screening of embryos we can eliminate the embryos with chromosomal abnormalities from being transferred back to the uterus. When we get the IVF chromosome screening test results back we hope to have at least one chromosomally normal embryo for transfer.
IVF with PGS success rates are significantly higher in our program than success rates for IVF without PGS for all age groups. The amount of improvement seen in success rates after preimplantation genetic testing increases with female age because of the increasing chance for unscreened embryos to be abnormal.
Avoiding transfer of embryos with chromosomal abnormalities significantly improves embryo implantation. What we are currently seeing with PGS in our center is:
- 63% for live birth if we transfer back one PGS normal embryo
- 80% for live birth if we transfer 2 normal embryos (a lot of twins)
- See our overall IVF success rates
This is independent of female age. It does not matter if we got the eggs from a 30 year old or a 42 year old. After having PGS testing (and found normal) they have the same chance for implantation – at any age.
I believe that the future of IVF will be to do PGS on almost all IVF embryos. The two issues holding us back from using PGS more are the additional costs and the 24 hour turn around for test results.
This 24 hour delay results in the need for a frozen embryo transfer being done a few weeks later instead of a fresh embryo transfer right away. Patients sometimes don’t want to wait any longer to try to get pregnant.
However, some recent studies suggest frozen embryo transfers allow a better uterine environment for embryo implantation and better success rates. Therefore, perhaps frozen transfers will be utilized more in the future even when PGS is not done.
The cost for PGS screening will go down over time as will the time needed to get results back from the genetics lab. This will result in more utilization of this powerful technology by couples having IVF.
The 2013 SART report was released in early March 2015 by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. It reports clinic-specific pregnancy outcome results from in vitro fertilization cycles done by SART member clinics in 2013. The SART report is a useful resource for couples considering in vitro fertilization treatment using their own eggs or donor eggs.
Most IVF clinics in the US are SART members and have their data included in this report. A small percentage of clinics choose not to be SART members so their IVF outcome data will not be in it. However, federal law mandates that all IVF clinics in the US report their data annually to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a federal government agency. The CDC IVF report for a given year is usually released several months after the SART report.
The SART report shows both individual clinic results and national averages for IVF live birth success rates by age of the female partner. It also shows live birth success rates for treatments using donor eggs. Pregnancy and live birth success rates are shown separately for cycles using fresh eggs and embryos and for cycles using frozen embryos.
For the first time, this year’s report also shows pregnancy outcome results for frozen (banked) donor eggs. Egg freezing and egg banking is a new and rapidly evolving technology. Success rates at some clinics using frozen donor eggs are now approaching the success rates for using fresh donor eggs. Not quite as good yet, but getting closer over time.
The report also shows various other statistics for the clinics including a breakdown of diagnosis categories for the patients having IVF and the average number of embryos transferred in the various groups and percentage of singleton, twin and triplet or higher pregnancies. Learn more about the SART and CDC IVF success reports on our website.
Couples needing fertility services can utilize the SART report to compare success rates between clinics that they might consider utilizing. Success rates vary dramatically between programs and it is important for couples to understand the success rates at any fertility clinic they consider.
- The national average for IVF live birth success per cycle for 2013 was 40%. Our clinic’s IVF results were much better than average at 58%.
- The national average for egg donation live birth success per transfer for 2013 was 56%. Our clinic’s egg donation success rates were much higher at 77%
This year SART included a new metric in the report that reports the “percentage of cycles where thaw was attempted that resulted in live birth”. In the past frozen embryo transfer cycles were only reported on a “per embryo transfer” basis. Therefore, in previous SART reports if there was an attempt to thaw and transfer a couple’s embryos but no embryo survived the thaw – the data would not show up at all in the report (it was reported on a “per transfer” basis).
In the current report it shows outcome statistics on a “per thaw cycle” basis and also on a “per embryo transfer” basis. If a clinic has technical problems with embryo freezing and thawing they could have low success rates for both metrics or could have better success rates on a per transfer basis but lower rates per thaw. This would indicate embryos were not surviving well after thawing.
The SART report is a useful and timely tool for couples needing in vitro fertilization or egg donation services. The complete 2013 SART report is available through this link to the SART website. It shows national average pregnancy outcome statistics as well as clinic-specific reports for all SART member clinics.
- More about the SART and CDC IVF success rate reports
A comparison of clinic success rates may not be meaningful because patient medical characteristics, treatment approaches and entrance criteria for ART may vary from clinic to clinic.
The 2012 SART report was recently released by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). This annual report details IVF success rates and egg donation success rates for individual clinics that are members of the SART organization. The large majority of US IVF programs are SART member clinics so their IVF success rates are therefore included in this report.
A separate report on IVF success rates, the US government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report also comes out every year and covers all US clinics (by federal law). However, the CDC report is released much later than the SART report. The CDC report is released in sections with the first part out 4-5 months after the SART report.
The SART report also shows national average statistics. This allows couples with fertility problems that are considering in vitro fertilization to investigate the live birth success rates at any IVF program that they are considering. They can compare the success rates to other programs in their home area, to other programs in the US, and to national averages.
The data in this report is broken down by age group and also by whether fresh eggs and fresh embryos were transferred to the uterus or whether frozen embryos were thawed and transferred. Cycles using donor eggs are also reported separately both for fresh embryo transfers and frozen embryo transfers.
We are proud of our IVF and egg donation success rates. Our rates have been above national averages for 16 years in a row.
- For 2012 our live birth success rate for women under age 35 was 55% per egg retrieval compared to the national average of 43%
- For egg donation our 2012 live birth success rate was 82% per transfer which compares to the national average of 57%
Additional information is included in the SART report including the percentage of pregnancies with twins and triplets, the average number of embryos transferred in the different groups, and information about the diagnosis categories of patients being treated. For example, it gives the percentage of IVF cases that had a male factor infertility diagnosis, and the percentage with diminished ovarian reserve, endometriosis, tubal factor, etc.
The SART report is a valuable asset for couples considering in vitro fertilization or egg donation. They can compare success rates between clinics in order to find the clinic that will best be able to help them build their family.
The 2012 SART report is available through this link to the SART website:
More about the SART and CDC IVF success rate reports
Egg freezing has been used in reproductive medicine for many years for fertility preservation as well as for banking of donor eggs. In the last several years egg freezing technology has improved significantly. Therefore, in the fall of 2012 the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) removed the “experimental” designation for egg freezing.
Embryo freezing has been utilized very effectively since the 1980s and live birth success rates in some IVF programs (including ours) with frozen embryos at the blastocyst stage are as good or even better than the success rates seen in the same IVF clinics using fresh embryos. However, eggs are more difficult to efficiently freeze and thaw without damaging the cell.
Eggs are frozen using either “slow freeze” technology or vitrification which is ultra-rapid freezing. We believe that egg vitrification is superior and are using it successfully at the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago.
The first baby from in vitro fertilization using fresh eggs was born in 1978. Not long after that egg donation was being done. Since then millions of babies have been born after IVF and many studies have been done to see whether there are increases in birth defects or other problems in the children.
Thousands of children have been born following thawing of frozen eggs. Thus far the results are reassuring regarding the health and well-being of children born using frozen eggs. Although there are not large numbers of children in the studies there does not seem to be an increased risk to the children for birth defects or other problems for babies from frozen eggs as compared to babies born after IVF with fresh eggs.
Egg banking done for egg donation is becoming more common. Egg donation success rates are higher when using fresh eggs as compared to frozen eggs but there are some potential advantages to using frozen donor eggs:
- With frozen eggs there is a lower cost per cycle (per attempt)
- With frozen eggs there is likely to be less waiting for a donor to be ready
- With frozen eggs there is more certainty regarding the number of eggs that will be available to use
- For example, problems with the donor’s ovarian stimulation process have already been dealt with when using frozen donor eggs
I believe that over time we will see a gradual shift towards doing more frozen donor egg cycles. Many factors will influence the rate of change including:
- The success rates with frozen donor eggs that will eventually be reported on a per clinic basis through the SART and CDC IVF success rate reports
- Availability of frozen donor eggs and availability of donors for fresh cycles
- Perceptions and preferences of couples needing egg donation about issues with fresh and frozen donor egg cycles
- Cost issues
At the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago we have been doing egg donation with fresh eggs for 17 years and now have frozen donor eggs available as well.
The CDC recently released the new IVF success rate report that shows individual IVF clinic’s IVF success rates as well as national averages. This report covers IVF treatments performed in 2011. It is available to the public on the CDC website as a PDF or as a downloadable Excel spreadsheet.
The CDC IVF success rate report shows success rates for individual IVF centers in the United States. This allows couples struggling with infertility to evaluate live birth success rates for any fertility program.
The report also includes a page showing national average success rates for all categories of patients. I suggest that before having in vitro fertilization performed anywhere, couples should look up the clinic in the CDC report and compare its success rates to national averages. They should also compare the numbers to other clinics in their area.
The CDC report also shows the number of cases done in various diagnostic categories and age groups. So, for example, if someone needs IVF with donor eggs they should look at how much experience the program has with egg donation as well as the success rates using donor eggs.
For example, some IVF programs will do a significant volume of IVF using women’s own eggs but do very few cases with donor eggs. This should be an important consideration for patients needing IVF with donor eggs.
The CDC report is organized by state and within the states are listed alphabetically by city where the clinic is located. All IVF programs are required by federal law to report their IVF outcome data to the government for reporting to the public. Some clinics choose to violate federal law and not report their data.
Unfortunately, when the government passed the law they did not make a specific punishment for clinics that violate this law. Therefore, at this time the punishment for not reporting is only to be listed as a “non-reporting clinic”. Some clinics prefer to be listed as a non-reporting clinic rather than to have the public see their IVF statistics.
This obviously suggests that these programs have something to hide. Most likely they have low IVF success rates and do not want the public to see the numbers. I recommend couples stay away from any program that is breaking federal law by not reporting its IVF statistics.
The CDC report also shows the diagnosis categories of patients that are treated with IVF. It shows the percentage of cases that had male factor problems, the percent with tubal factor, the percent with diminished ovarian reserve, with endometriosis, unexplained infertility, etc.
The success results are broken down by age group. Less than 35 is the youngest age group, the other age groups are 35 to 37, 38 to 40, 41 to 42 and 43 to 44. For donor eggs all recipient ages are lumped together. This is because there is almost no difference in outcome statistics based on the age of the recipient female when using (young) donor eggs.
Results are shown on a per cycle basis and on a per transfer basis in the 2011 CDC report. A “cycle” is defined as all cases that started stimulation medications with the intention of having IVF performed. Not all patients to start cycles make it to the egg retrieval procedure because some will be canceled for a very poor response to the ovarian stimulating drugs.
Cancellation criteria will very between fertility clinics but most clinics in the US want to see a minimum of three or four mature size follicles before proceeding to the egg retrieval procedure. With less mature follicles than that the success rates are extremely low.
In the past the CDC report showed statistics on a per egg retrieval basis as well. It has always been traditional to report outcomes on a per cycle, per egg retrieval, and per embryo transfer basis. However, for some reason the CDC dropped the per egg retrieval reporting from the 2011 results page.
I think this is unfortunate because the live birth rate per egg retrieval shows how good the clinic is at getting couples pregnant if they make it to an egg retrieval procedure. There are number of reasons aside from cycle cancellation for low response to stimulation that a patient might not have an embryo transfer procedure.
For example, they could have all embryos frozen (for various reasons), or they could have poor embryo development resulting in no viable embryos for transfer.Fortunately, the other IVF success reporting system (SART IVF success rate report) still shows the live birth rate per egg retrieval statistic.
The CDC IVF report is released in 3 parts.
- A spreadsheet with all reporting clinics success rates is released in early summer
- A PDF document with statistics for all reporting clinics is released in late summer
- The complete report with clinic success statistics and other compiled statistics based on the aggregate national data is released in late winter (early 2014 for the 2011 report)
Overall, the CDC has put out an excellent report that allows consumers of IVF services to examine success rates at clinics they are considering.
- IVF success rates vary significantly between programs
- Couples should make an informed choice about where to have IVF after studying clinic success rates in the CDC report.
SART has recently released its 2011 IVF success rate report. This report details the in vitro fertilization pregnancy and live birth success rates for all US IVF clinics that are members of the SART organization (Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology).
Almost all IVF clinics in the US are members of SART. However, some clinics are not SART members so their IVF success rates are not in the SART report.
See our IVF success rates
See our donor egg success rates
IVF clinics were required to submit their data to SART in November 2012 after they collected the live birth information from all IVF cycles performed in 2011. SART then takes a few months to prepare the data for public distribution.
The same data is reported by IVF clinics to the CDC. The CDC is a US government agency (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Membership and reporting IVF results to SART is voluntary. However, reporting to the US government through the CDC is required under federal law for all IVF centers.
The SART report is a useful tool for couples with infertility that might need to consider in vitro fertilization to get pregnant. Using this report, couples can investigate live birth success rates per IVF treatment cycle in their age group.
Patients needing fertility treatments should investigate IVF success rates at clinics they are considering for treatment.
- Success rates vary between programs. All IVF clinics to not produce viable pregnancies at the same rate.
- There are over 200 variables involved with quality controlduring an IVF cycle
- Two critical variables are the quality of the clinical side of the IVF program and the quality control system in the IVF laboratory
The SART report allows couples to learn about various details about a specific clinic’s success rates and they can compare those numbers to national averages.
- Outcome data are shown separately for cycles using the woman’s own eggs vs. egg donation cycles
- Pregnancy results are also given for transfers using fresh embryos vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfers
- Success rates can be filtered for different diagnostic categories such as male factor infertility, diminished ovarian reserve, endometriosis, tubal factor, etc.
Below is a screenshot of a portion of our 2011 SART results page showing live birth rates in 3 age groups (under 35, 35-37 and 38-40) using a woman’s own eggs and fresh embryos.
- The SART report allows couples to compare success rates of clinics they are considering with national averages and with other clinics in their area.
- If a clinic you are considering has low success rates compared to the national average, I suggest going somewhere with better success statistics.
There is a video on our website showing how to research IVF success rates using the SART report.
To see the 2011 SART report and check IVF success rates:
- Go to the SART website
- Click on the state that you want on the US map
- Click on any clinic you want to see IVF results for
- Click “ART Data Report” and the clinic’s IVF statistics for 2011 will come up
Our website has links to the CDC and the SART reports and discusses them in more detail with examples showing how to interpret clinic-specific and national average tables.
A comparison of clinic success rates may not be meaningful because patient medical characteristics, treatment approaches and entrance criteria for ART may vary from clinic to clinic.
Ideal treatment of the poor responder for in vitro fertilization is problematic. Over time, I see more and more patients that have failed multiple IVF attempts at other clinics. The majority of these patients fit into the poor responder category.
Generally, the poor responders should be identified by the fertility doctors before starting an IVF cycle. At our fertility clinic we use ovarian reserve testing to evaluate a woman’s expected response to the stimulating medications. As our basic ovarian reserve screening, we do:
- Antral follicle counts by ultrasound
- Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) blood tests
- Day 3 FSH, LH and estradiol blood tests
These tests will identify the vast majority of poor responders before they get to an IVF attempt. Identifying the problem in advance allows us an opportunity to do something to improve the response (and the outcome) with the first IVF attempt.
The definition of a poor responder is variable. Regardless of the definition one uses, the basic idea is that poor responders do not respond well to the IVF ovarian stimulation protocol by making a good number of mature follicles. Less mature follicles means less eggs retrieved which results in lower numbers of embryos and less chance to have one that is a “marathon runner” (baby).
For example, women under 35 years old give an average of 12 eggs with IVF. However, poor responders would only produce about 1 to 6 eggs. The chances for success with IVF are very much dependent on two variables – the quantity and the quality of the eggs.
Therefore, if we could come up with a treatment that would help the poor responders to give either more eggs or better quality eggs or both, we would be able to positively impact the chance of having a baby.
Various types of supplementation protocols have been used to try to improve outcomes for IVF poor responders. In this article I want to discuss the use of growth hormone for this purpose.
Growth hormone has been used for poor responders for many years. However due to the very high cost of growth hormone in the past it was rarely utilized. However, over the years with more competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace the cost of growth hormone has come down. During this same time frame, more studies have been published showing benefit from treatment with growth hormone for IVF low responders.
20 years ago, growth hormone treatment added about $5000 to the cost of IVF. That was too high. With the drop in the market price for growth hormone the cost has come down to about $1000 currently. This price change has made it more feasible and potentially a cost-effective addition to the IVF stimulation protocol.
Although all of the studies that have investigated this had small sample sizes, several of them showed significantly improved IVF success rates in poor responders that supplement their stimulation with growth hormone. For the most part, the studies all showed the same thing. Adding growth hormone to the ovarian stimulation protocol for poor responders significantly increases the chances for a pregnancy and a live birth.
The mechanism by which growth hormone would improve IVF success rates is not clear. However, based on animal and human studies it has been shown that growth hormone is involved in production of steroid hormones in the ovary and in development of ovarian follicles. Studies have shown that if mice are lacking the growth hormone receptor and growth hormone binding protein there is a significant reduction in the development of ovarian follicles.
It is also thought the growth hormone could increase the production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the ovaries. IGF-I is thought to be involved in regulating follicle development, estrogen hormone production and maturation of eggs.
Several studies have shown improved IVF live birth success rates after supplementation of growth hormone in poor responders. Although the success rates are still not as high as seen in normal responders to stimulation, they are significantly improved over the baseline success rates expected in poor responders.
For this reason, I have been using growth hormone supplementation for many of my poor responding IVF patients. Whether the additional cost of the growth hormone supplementation is worth it is a more difficult question.
Of course, if we knew that the growth hormone would get the patient to a successful pregnancy and a live birth – it would be a no-brainer. However, this is not magic and many women who use growth hormone supplementation will still have unsuccessful IVF attempts.
Some couples will move on to egg donation because of the high success rates with donor eggs instead of continuing to attempt low-yield IVF with their own eggs.
The most effective dosage and duration of growth hormone has not been clarified yet. The published studies have used:
- Doses between 4mg – 24mg, given daily or every other day
- Used it for the first several days of stimulation, or for the entire stimulation phase
Poor ovarian response to stimulation is a difficult problem without a perfect solution at this time. Supplementation with growth hormone is one way we can try to improve the odds for poor responders.
Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to figure out how much improvement in outcome we can expect by using growth hormone as well as which subgroups of patients could benefit the most.
The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 mandates that IVF clinics annually give their IVF live birth success rate data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a US government agency.
- Couples needing fertility treatment should check and compare IVF success rates at any fertility clinic they are considering
- Before you do IVF, know the success rate statistics at programs in your area
- Video shows how to use the SART website to check and compare IVF success rates at fertility clinics
IVF cycles from December 2011 would result in babies being born by about mid October. Then fertility clinics can call patients to get birth information by about November 1st and can submit it to SART and/or the government. SART releases its annual IVF success rate report in January to February. Therefore, the 2011 SART report should be released in January-February 2013. The preliminary CDC report is released several months later and the complete CDC report takes about a full year to come out.
In vitro fertilization clinics have 2 options for reporting outcome statistics to the government:
- They can report it to SART, who will publish it on their website (www.SART.org) and pass the data on to the CDC
- They can bypass SART and report to Westat, a statistical survey research organization that the CDC contracts with to obtain data from fertility clinics
The CDC publishes a thorough report (www.cdc.gov/art/ARTReports.htm), but it comes out several months later than the SART report for the same year.
Both the CDC and the SART reports show national averages as well as clinic-specific data for all reporting clinics. Unfortunately, some IVF clinics refuse to report their data, as required by federal law. They choose to be listed as a “non-reporting clinic” rather than let the public see their IVF statistics.
- This suggests they have low success rates
- Stay away from these clinics
- A section of the CDC’s “National Summary and Fertility Clinic Success Rates” report lists all of the “non-reporting clinics”
We recently submitted our 2011 IVF live birth success rates to SART, as did most other US clinics. Our outcome statistics are shown below.
|Our 2011 IVF Pregnancy and Live Birth Success Rates – Fresh Cycles
IVF statistics for January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011
Clinical Pregnancy Rate
Per Egg Retrieval
Live Birth Rate
Per Egg Retrieval
|75 embryo transfers|| 81.3%
Per embryo transfer
Per embryo transfer
|Our 2011 Frozen Embryo Transfer Statistics
Frozen Transfer Statistics for January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011
|Clinical Pregnancy Rate
Live Birth Rate
Per Embryo Transfer
Donor success rates
Tight quality control is what makes the biggest difference in outcome statistics. We work hard every day to maintain quality control throughout our fertility practice.
- The choice of the IVF stimulation protocol for the individual couple is important
- The doctor must manage the stimulation with careful medication adjustments
- The nursing staff needs to communicate doctor’s instructions effectively to patients
- A properly performed egg retrieval procedure is important
- The laboratory culture environment has over 200 variables affecting egg, sperm and embryo quality
- A smooth and efficient embryo transfer procedure can be difficult and is a critical factor that affects chances for success
- The challenge for the fertility clinic is to get and keep a grip on all of these areas
Do your research and find a clinic that you can trust to get the job done effectively.
A comparison of clinic success rates may not be meaningful because patient medical characteristics, treatment approaches and entrance criteria for ART may vary from clinic to clinic.
Welcome to the
Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago Blog
Richard Sherbahn, MD is a Board Certified Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility specialist.
Dr. Sherbahn founded the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago in 1997.
He will post regularly about fertility issues.
Subscribe To This Blog
RSS feed: Fertility, IVF and Egg Donation
- SART Releases 2014 IVF Success Rate Report
- Which is better, fresh or frozen embryo transfer for IVF?
- IVF Genetic Testing Improves Embryo Implantation
- 2013 SART IVF Success Rate Report Released
- IVF Success Rate Report Released – 2012 SART Report
- Using Frozen Eggs for Egg Donation
- CDC Releases 2011 IVF Success Rates Report
- SART Releases 2011 IVF Success Rate Report with Outcome Results for All IVF Clinics
- Growth Hormone to Boost IVF Success Rates in Poor Responders
- 2011 IVF Live Birth Success Rates Available
Browse by tagsAge Age and Fertility CDC clinic success rate reports Delayed childbearing donor egg bank donor egg ivf donor egg program donor egg success rates Egg quality Egg quantity Fertility Fertility clinic Fertility doctor Fertility treatment Guidelines In vitro fertilization IVF IVF number of embryos transferred Multiple pregnancy Nadya Suleman Octomom oocyte cryopreservation Ovarian reserve Regulations Report Risks SART Success Success rate
- Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago
- American Society for Reproductive Medicine
- Center for Disease Control, CDC
- Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, SART
Visit our friends
A few highly recommended friends...