Gestational carrier in assisted reproductive technology

Live birth rates are higher in gestational carrier com- pared with non–gestational carrier in vitro fertilization cycles.
Gestational carrier in assisted reproductive technology
Like

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.

Please sign in or register for FREE

Your Fertility and Sterility Dialog login information is not the same as your ASRM or EES credentials. Users must create a separate account to comment or interact on the Dialog.