Gestational carrier in assisted reproductive technology

Live birth rates are higher in gestational carrier com- pared with non–gestational carrier in vitro fertilization cycles.

Like Comment

Volume 109, Issue 3, Pages 418–419

Authors:

Gayathree Murugappan, M.D., Leslie V. Farland, Sc.D., Stacey A. Missmer, Sc.D., Katharine F. Correia, M.A., Raymond M. Anchan, M.D., Ph.D., Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, M.D.

Abstract:

Objective

To compare clinical outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles with the use of gestational carriers (GCs) with non-GC IVF cycles.

Design

Retrospective cohort study of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles performed with (24,269) and without (1,313,452) the use of a GC.

Setting

ART centers.

Patient(s)

Infertile patients seeking IVF with or without use of a GC.

Interventions(s)

Autologous and donor oocyte cycles, fresh and cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Live birth rate (LBR), twin and high-order multiple birth rates.

Result(s)

Approximately 2% of embryo transfers used a GC. Per embryo transfer, GCs had greater pregnancy rate and LBR across all IVF types compared with non-GC cycles in crude models and models adjusted a priori for potential confounders. For women with uterine-factor infertility, embryo transfer with the use of a GC resulted in a higher odds of live birth for autologous fresh embryos and for cryopreserved embryos compared with patients with non–uterine-factor infertility diagnoses.

Conclusion(s)

GC benefits LBRs for some patients seeking ART. The highest LBRs occurred when the indication for GC was uterine-factor infertility.

 

Read the full text here.

Fertility and Sterility

Editorial Office, American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders.