Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 30, Issue 11, pp 1445–1450 | Cite as

Live birth rates and birth outcomes by diagnosis using linked cycles from the SART CORS database

  • Judy E. SternEmail author
  • Morton B. Brown
  • Ethan Wantman
  • Suleena Kansal Kalra
  • Barbara Luke
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Purpose

This study uses linked cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to examine cumulative live birth rates, birthweight, and length of gestation by diagnostic category.

Methods

We studied 145,660 women with 235,985 ART cycles reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System during 2004–2010. ART cycles were linked to individual women by name, date of birth, social security number, partner’s name, and sequence of ART treatments. The study population included the first four autologous oocyte cycles for women with a single diagnosis of male factor, endometriosis, ovulation disorders, diminished ovarian reserve, or unexplained infertility. Live birth rates were calculated per cycle, per cycle number (1–4), and cumulatively. Birthweight and length of gestation were calculated for singleton births.

Results

Within each diagnosis, live birth rates were highest in the first cycle and declined with successive cycles. Women with diminished ovarian reserve had the lowest live birth rate (cumulative rate of 28.3 %); the live birth rate for the other diagnoses were very similar (cumulative rates from 62.1 % to 65.7 %). Singleton birthweights and lengths of gestation did not differ substantially across diagnoses, ranging from 3,112 to 3,286 g and 265 to 270 days, respectively. These outcomes were comparable with national averages for singleton births in the United States (3,296 g and 271 days).

Conclusion

Women with the diagnosis of diminished ovarian reserve had substantially lower live birth rates. However, singleton birthweights and lengths of gestation outcomes were similar across all other diagnoses.

Keywords

Diagnosis Assisted reproductive technology Linked cycles SART CORS Birthweight Gestational age 

Notes

Acknowledgements

SART wishes to thank all of its members for providing clinical information to the SART CORS database for use by patients and researchers. Without the efforts of our members, this research would not have been possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(10):731–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Rebar RW, Tasca RJ. Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes: executive summary of a national institute of child health and human development workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(4):967–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalra SK, Ratcliffe SJ, Coutifaris C, Molinaro T, Barnhart KT. Ovarian stimulation and low birth weight in newborns conceived through in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(4):863–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calhoun KC, Fritz MA, Steiner AZ. Examining the relationship between ovarian reserve, as measured by basal FSH levels, and the risk of poor obstetric outcome in singleton IVF gestations. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3424–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Nygren K-G, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(3):611–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(6):1144–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stern JE, Brown MB, Luke B, Wantman E, Lederman A, Hornstein MD, et al. Cycle 1 as predictor of assisted reproductive technology treatment outcome over multiple cycles: an analysis of linked cycles from the society for assisted reproductive technology clinic outcomes reporting system online database. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):600–5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stern JE, Brown MB, Luke B, Wantman E, Lederman A, Missmer SA, et al. Calculating cumulative live-birth rates from linked cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART): data from the Massachusetts SART CORS. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1334–40. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.052.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Lederman A, Gibbons W, Schattman GL, et al. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(26):2483–91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramaho de Caraho B, Sobrinho DBG, Vieira ADD, Resende MPS, Barbosa ACP, Silva AA, et al. Ovarian reserve assessment for infertility investigation. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2012:576385.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nangia AK, Luke B, Smith JF, Mak W, Stern JE, Group SW. National study of factors influencing assisted reproductive technology outcomes with male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):609–14. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qiao J, Feng HL. Extra- and intra-ovarian factors in polycystic ovary syndrome: impact on oocyte maturation and embryo developmental competence. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):17–33. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq032.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quaas A, Dorkas A. Diagnosis and treatment of unexplained infertility. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1(2):69–76.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maheshwari A, Bhattacharya S (2013) Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1):6–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des386.
  15. 15.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJK, Kirmeyer S, Mathews TJ, et al. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011;60(1):1–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boomsma CM, Eijkemans MJC, Hughes EG, Visser GHA, Fauser BCJM, Macklon NS. A meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):673–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Axmon A, Hagmar L. Time to pregnancy and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(4):966–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luke B, Cabral H, Cohen BB, Hoang L, Plummer KM, Kotelchuck M. Comparison of measures in SART database and Massachusetts vital statistics. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:S76–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy E. Stern
    • 1
    Email author
  • Morton B. Brown
    • 2
  • Ethan Wantman
    • 3
  • Suleena Kansal Kalra
    • 4
  • Barbara Luke
    • 5
  1. 1.Obstetrics and GynecologyGeisel School of Medicine at DartmouthLebanonUSA
  2. 2.BiostatisticsSchool of Public Health, University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Redshift Technologies, IncNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & InfertilityHospital of University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations