Samantha B Schon1,2, Maren Shapiro3,4, Clarisa Gracia5, Suneeta Senapati5. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. sschon@mail.med.umich.edu. 2. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, L4000 UH-South, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. sschon@mail.med.umich.edu. 3. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 5. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, L4000 UH-South, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and ovarian stimulation outcomes between patients presenting for medically indicated vs. elective fertility preservation consultation and to determine the impact of the 2013 ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation on the patient population presenting for fertility preservation consultation. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic center. Study population included 332 patients presenting for medically indicated fertility preservation consultation and 210 patients presenting for elective consultation. RESULTS: Patients presenting for elective fertility preservation consultation were more likely to be of advanced age, non-Caucasian, highly educated, single, nulligravid, and meet criteria for diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Additionally, patients presenting electively were more likely to have fertility insurance benefits. A higher percentage of patients with insurance benefits for oocyte cryopreservation proceeded to stimulation. There were no differences in stimulation parameters or number of retrieved oocytes between the groups when adjusted for age. Following release of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation, there was no difference in the percentage of patients in the medical group who proceeded with stimulation; however, a higher percentage of patients presenting electively underwent ovarian stimulation. CONCLUSION: Although the populations presenting for medical compared with elective fertility preservation differ at baseline, ovarian stimulation parameters and outcomes are similar when adjusted for age. Insurance benefits for fertility preservation are not comprehensive and impact the decision to proceed with stimulation in all patients. The publication of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation increased utilization of this technology among patients presenting electively; however, they remained at an advanced age and with decreased ovarian reserve parameters.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and ovarian stimulation outcomes between patients presenting for medically indicated vs. elective fertility preservation consultation and to determine the impact of the 2013 ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation on the patient population presenting for fertility preservation consultation. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic center. Study population included 332 patients presenting for medically indicated fertility preservation consultation and 210 patients presenting for elective consultation. RESULTS:Patients presenting for elective fertility preservation consultation were more likely to be of advanced age, non-Caucasian, highly educated, single, nulligravid, and meet criteria for diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Additionally, patients presenting electively were more likely to have fertility insurance benefits. A higher percentage of patients with insurance benefits for oocyte cryopreservation proceeded to stimulation. There were no differences in stimulation parameters or number of retrieved oocytes between the groups when adjusted for age. Following release of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation, there was no difference in the percentage of patients in the medical group who proceeded with stimulation; however, a higher percentage of patients presenting electively underwent ovarian stimulation. CONCLUSION: Although the populations presenting for medical compared with elective fertility preservation differ at baseline, ovarian stimulation parameters and outcomes are similar when adjusted for age. Insurance benefits for fertility preservation are not comprehensive and impact the decision to proceed with stimulation in all patients. The publication of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation increased utilization of this technology among patients presenting electively; however, they remained at an advanced age and with decreased ovarian reserve parameters.
Authors: Javier Domingo; Vicente Guillén; Yanira Ayllón; María Martínez; Elkin Muñoz; Antonio Pellicer; Juan A Garcia-Velasco Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2012-01-28 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Kimberley A Hill; Tova Nadler; Rodica Mandel; Stephanie Burlein-Hall; Clifford Librach; Karen Glass; Ellen Warner Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Lauren N C Johnson; Katherine E Dillon; Mary D Sammel; Brenda L Efymow; Monica A Mainigi; Anuja Dokras; Clarisa R Gracia Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Erin M Mobley; Ginny L Ryan; Amy E Sparks; Varun Monga; William W Terry Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 2.223