Live birth rates and birth outcomes by diagnosis using linked cycles from the SART CORS database
- 265 Downloads
This study uses linked cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to examine cumulative live birth rates, birthweight, and length of gestation by diagnostic category.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsDiagnosis Assisted reproductive technology Linked cycles SART CORS Birthweight Gestational age
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.
- 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.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
- 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
- 13.Quaas A, Dorkas A. Diagnosis and treatment of unexplained infertility. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1(2):69–76.Google Scholar
- 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.