Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 92–96 | Cite as

Three hundred cycles of oocyte donation at the University of Southern California: Assessing the effect of age and infertility diagnosis on pregnancy and implantation rates

  • Mark V. Sauer
  • Richard J. Paulson
  • Beth A. Ary
  • Rogerio A. Lobo
Clinical Assisted Reproduction



Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of age on endometrial receptivity and to compare success rates for oocyte donation among groups with differing primary diagnoses.


This was a retrospective analysis of 300 consecutively attempted oocyte donation cycles.


The setting was the in vitro fertilization program at the University of Southern California.


Recipients were divided into groups according to age: Group I, <30 years (n=8); Group II, 30–39 years (n=59); Group III, 40–49 years (n=107); and Group IV, 50–59 years (n=18). Additionally, indications for treatment were divided into Classes A–G according to a primary diagnosis given to each patient and included premature ovarian failure (n=44), surgical castration (n=9), genetic disease carrier (n=12), transitional menopause (n=27), natural menopause (n=30), multiple IVF failures (n=62), and postchemotherapy (n=8). Recipients received oral micronized estradiol and intramuscular progesterone. Oocytes were donated by fertile young women utilizing ovarian hyperstimulation with menopausal gonadotropins.


There were no significant differences among groups or classes related to either the number of oocytes received or the number of embryos transferred per cycle. Rates for embryo implantation and resorption and the clinical and ongoing or delivered pregnancy rates were similarly not different among patients except for women who previously received chemotherapy, where a significantly elevated rate of spontaneous abortion was noted P <0.05).


The establishment of pregnancy utilizing oocyte donation is not adversely affected by the chronological age of the recipient, inferring that the age-related decline in fertility is due primarily to oocyte aging, and not to loss of endometrial receptivity. Also, prior exposure to chemotherapy may alter endometrial integrity and lead to greater pregnancy wastage in women receiving donated embryos.

Key words

oocyte donation age and infertility menopause in vitro fertilization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Trounson A, Leeton J, Besanko M, Wood C, Conti A: Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertillized in vitro. Br Med J 1983;286:835–838Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lutjen P, Trounson A, Leeton J, Findlay J, Wood C, Renou P: The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature 1984;307:174–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Macaso TM, Francis-Hernandez M, Lobo RA: Establishment of a nonanonymous donor oocyte program: Preliminary experience at the University of Southern California. Fertil Steril 1989;52:433–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sauer MV, Paulson RJ: Understanding the current status of oocyte donation in the United States: What's really going on out there? Fertil Steril 1992;58:16–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA: Reversing the natural decline in human fertility. JAMA 1992;268:1275–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Navot D, Bergh PA, Williams MA,et al.: Poor oocyte quality rather than implantation failure as a cause of age related decline in female fertility. Lancet 1991;337:1375–1377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA: Pregnancy after age 50: Application of oocyte donation to women after natural menopause. Lancet 1993;341:321–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeCherney AH, Berkowitz GS: Female fecundity and age. N Engl J Med 1982;306:424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van-Noord-Zaadstra BM, Loma CWN, Alsbach H, Habbema JDF, Velde ER, Karbaat J: Delaying childbearing: Effect of age on fecundity and outcome of pregnancy. Br Med J 1991;302:1361–1365Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rotsztejn DA, Asch RH: Effect of aging on assisted reproductive technologies (ART): Experience from egg donation. Sem Reprod Endocrinol 1991;9:272–279Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schattman GL, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z: Patient selection and screening for assisted reproductive technology. Inf Reprod Med Clin No Am 1993;4:619–641Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meldrum DR: Female reproductive aging: ovarian and uterine factors. Fertil Steril 1993;59:1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sauer MV, Miles RA, Dahmoush L, Paulson RJ, Press M, Moyer D: Evaluating the effect of age on endometrial responsiveness to hormone replacement therapy: A histologic, ultrasonographic, and tissue receptor analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993;10:47–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pados G, Camus M, Van Waesberghe L, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P: Oocyte and embryo donation: Evaluation of 412 consecutive trials. Hum Reprod 1992;7:1111–1117PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark V. Sauer
    • 1
  • Richard J. Paulson
    • 1
  • Beth A. Ary
    • 1
  • Rogerio A. Lobo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics & GynecologyUniversity of Southern California School of MedicineLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations