Detailed SART IVF Stats Comparison

Written by Arpee on September 30, 2008 – 9:02 pm -

I’ve been looking at IVF stats from SART for sometime now and just like last Saturday’s post, I thought that was it. This weekend was the only time I stared at it long enough to discover that the IVF stats can be sliced further according to the diagnosis of the IVF patients. The per Diagnosis-sliced data was very interesting.

I lined up our known diagnosis to the Diagnosis Types in the SART database:

  • Tubal Factor
  • Ovulatory Dysfunction - Anovulation
  • Diminished Ovarian Reserve - Advanced Maternal Age
  • Endometriosis
  • Uterine Factor
  • Male Factor
  • Other Factor
  • Unknown Factor
  • Multiple Female Factors - Anovulation, PCOS, Advanced Maternal Age
  • Female and Male Factors -Anovulation, PCOS, Advanced Maternal Age, Low Sperm Morphology

I used 2006 SART IVF data from:

  • TFC - Texas Fertility Center
  • CCRM - Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine
  • SIRM-D - Sher Institute of Reproductive Medicine in Dallas, TX (since they are the only ones who publish to SART among the various locations of the SIRM. I’m showing how SIRM stats are presented later.)

Anyhow… Using these Diagnosis Types, I went to Select Diagnosis on the upper right corner of the SART stats (under the Diagnosis Frequency). For each of the related Diagnosis above, SART gives the stats for that particular Diagnosis alone. Here are the captured images of each clinic’s start for each of the related Diagnosis.

I summarized what I got from these captured images below:

NUMBER OF CYCLES

TFC

CCRM

SIRM-D

Total Cycles

675

1236

133

# of 38-40 yo Cycles (Total)

87

166

22

Diminished Ovarian Reserve

11

56

5

Multiple Female Factors

23

14

2

Ovarian Dysfunction

1

3

0

Female and Male Factors

12

18

4

Total Potentially Related Cases

47

91

11

CCRM had the most patients (91 vs 47 TFC) aged 38-40 years old with potentially related cases as mine. It might be a long shot, but this comparison may mean that CCRM has more experience on cases similar to mine. And perhaps may be able to help me more???

%ICSI, %PGD (All Ages)

TFC

CCRM

SIRM-D

Total %

36/3

78/19

85/14

Total ICSI Cycles (Total*% ICSI)

675*.36=243.0

1236*.78=964.08

133*.85=113.05

Total PGD Cycles (Total*% PGD)

675*.03=20.25

1236*.19=234.84

133*.14=18.62

Diminished Ovarian Reserve %

41/7

75/27

67/0

Multiple Female Factors %

26/0

66/20

100/12

Ovarian Dysfunction %

15/0

79/17

85/0

Female and Male Factors%

56/3

97/16

95/14

CCRM had the highest % cycles (78% vs 36% TFC) and most number of patients (964 vs 243 TFC) of all ages who had ICSI. This may be an indication of how much ICSI opportunity/experience the embryologists have for the clinics and thus how skillful they are.

CCRM also had the most # of cycles where PGD was used AT 234. Although TFC has 5X more cycles than SIRM-D, they have almost the same # of cylces where PGD was used (about 20). This may be an indication of how much biopsy and freezing/vitrification opportunity/experience the embryologists have for the clinics and thus how skillful they are. This may also be an indication how cutting edge or on top of technology the clinics/labs and doctors/embryologists are.

% LIVE BIRTH/CYCLE

TFC

CCRM

SIRM-D

% 38-40 yo cases (Total)

19.5

(11.2-27.9)

41

(33.5-48.4)

13.6

(0-28)

Diminished Ovarian Reserve

1/11

28.6

(16.7-40.4)

0/5

Multiple Female Factors

26.1

(8.1-44)

8/14

1/2

Ovarian Dysfunction

0/1

1/3

-

Female and Male Factors

4/12

11/18

-

CCRM has the highest live births per cycle, followed by TFC and SIRM-D

Of course, doing this is tricky because:
1) Without clear knowledge on how each of the SART Diagnosis Types are defined, I am guessing what my diagnosis corresponds to.
2) Unless the SART Diagnosis Types are defined clearly with a common standard reference to be used by different clinics, different clinics may have different interpretation of the SART Diagnosis clinic and thus categorized their cases differently. This would be a major error in assumption when making “apple-to-apple comparison.

This is all I’ve got, so I’m going to use the information for making the comparison anyway. It is better than nothing at all.

Blogged with the Flock Browser
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in IVF, In Between Cycles, Infertility Learnings | No Comments »

Consultation re IVF - STICKING POINTS (Part 2)

Written by Arpee on September 23, 2008 – 11:42 pm -

These topics are really the ones that have a lot of sticking points for me…

EGG/EMBRYO FREEZING
DrH also said that egg quality cannot be predicted and since I have old eggs, there is no point in egg freezing. They are able to assess the quality of the embryo through morphology to determine which will be transferred.

I don’t know if I picked up correctly on the discussion on Day 3 vs Day 5 transfer…

If there are only a few good Day 3 embryos, transfer is usually done on Day 3.  If there are more than a few good Day 3 embryos, those can tested for PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) or embryo screening.

DrH clarified that PGD is taken on the Day 3 embryo and results will be in for a Day 5 transfer. (So I am just realizing it now that if PGD is desired, that would automatically mean that it would be a Day 5 transfer - unless there is only a few good Day 3 embryo which forces a Day 3 transfer???)

On what is done to embryo and blasts that are not transferred - they are either frozen or discarded.  They will freeze only those that are judged to have a high chance to survive the freeze/thaw.  They give the blast up to Day 7 (which I suppose would be enough time/chance for the rest of the “lesser” blasts to survive before arresting) and will discard them.

Not sure if I captured that last statement accurately but that sounded a bit harsh… If I may quote from their clinic’s literature - “Only embryos that have fertilized abnormally, stopped dividing or have completely fragmented are discarded.” “Each embryo in our IVF laboratory is treated with the utmost care and respect…” DrH also mentioned that they are actually lean more leniently in judging the embryos to be frozen.


PGD OR EMBRYO SCREENING

DrH said that through PGD, they are able to determine if there are chromosomal abnormality (for 9 chromosome pairs only, not the 23 pairs) in all the embryos. This will isolate which embryos that have normal chromosomes from embryos that have abnormal chromosomes which lead to miscarriage. DrH also said that although PGD reduces the probability of miscarriage, it does not increase the pregnancy/live birth success rates.

The PGD is able to determine the gender of the embryo even at that point. (I read somewhere that there are some who practice gender selection using this method.)

DrH also said that as PGD will not be able to screen all chromosomes and I am of advanced maternal age, she recommends that if I do get pregnant, to have an amniocentesis for all the chromosomes since they cannot screen for Trisomy 21 (causes Downs syndrome) or Trisomy 17 and the like. (I don’t think I will do that since however the baby will be, I will accept. I will not terminate.)


I need to dig more into these.  Please pray for wisdom and discernment that we make a decision that is according to God’s will.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conversation, IVF, In Between Cycles, Infertility Learnings | 4 Comments »