Literature DB >> 34148151

The evolving landscape of donor egg treatment: success, women's choice, and anonymity.

Alexandra Peyser1, Stephanie Brownridge2, Mary Rausch2, Nicole Noyes2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze donor oocyte (DE) data across 6 years for oocyte usage efficiency, trends, and whether changes impacted outcomes.
METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, 323 DE embryo transfers were completed in 200 recipients using oocytes derived of 163 donors. We assessed data for oocytes being freshly retrieved (FRESH-EGG) vs. purchased frozen (FROZEN-EGG); embryos transferred fresh (FRESH-ET) vs. frozen (FROZEN-ET); cycles SHARED (two recipients) vs. SOLE (one recipient); single (SET) vs. double (DET) embryo transfers and usage of PGT-A. Primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy plus live birth (OP/LB) rate.
RESULTS: A total of 229 FRESH-EGG (70%) and 94 FROZEN-EGG (30%) cycles were completed. Overall, the use of FRESH-EGG yielded a higher OP/LB compared to FROZEN-EGG (49% vs. 30%, p = 0.001); within the FRESH-EGG group, OP/LB was similar when comparing FRESH-ET vs. FROZEN-ET (58% vs. 45%, p = 0.07). Within the FRESH-ET group, those using FRESH-EGG had a higher OP/LB than those using FROZEN-EGG (58% vs. 27%, p < 0.001). SHARED vs. SOLE cycles (p = 0.6), donor age (21-32 years; p = 0.4), and age of intended parents (maternal p = 0.3, paternal p = 0.2) did not significantly impact OP/LB. Notably, the use of PGT-A did not improve odds for an OP/LB (p = 0.7).
CONCLUSION: The use of FRESH-EGG with FRESH-ET without PGT-A remains superior to newer DE treatment combinations. Specifically, the use of FROZEN-EGG and PGT-A did not improve outcomes. Although changing DE practices may enhance experience and affordability, patients and providers must appreciate that choices do not always favorably impact success. Additionally, newly available genetic-ancestry testing may pose longer-term ramifications mandating change in treatment and/or counseling.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anonymity; Donor oocyte; Infertility; Oocyte donation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34148151      PMCID: PMC8490562          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02262-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.357


  27 in total

1.  Increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension in young recipients of donated oocytes.

Authors:  Debbra A Keegan; Lewis C Krey; Hung-Chi Chang; Nicole Noyes
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2007-01-29       Impact factor: 7.329

2.  Factors useful in predicting the success of oocyte donation: a 3-year retrospective analysis.

Authors:  N Noyes; B S Hampton; A Berkeley; F Licciardi; J Grifo; L Krey
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Impact of preimplantation genetic screening on donor oocyte-recipient cycles in the United States.

Authors:  David H Barad; Sarah K Darmon; Vitaly A Kushnir; David F Albertini; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Preimplantation genetic testing and chances of a healthy live birth amongst recipients of fresh donor oocytes in the United States.

Authors:  Cassandra Roeca; Rachel Johnson; Nichole Carlson; Alex J Polotsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 5.  Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Timothy Bracewell-Milnes; Srdjan Saso; Shabana Bora; Alaa M Ismail; Maya Al-Memar; Ali Hasan Hamed; Hossam Abdalla; Meen-Yau Thum
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 15.610

6.  Experiences and psychological outcomes of the oocyte donor: a survey of donors post-donation from one center.

Authors:  Jennifer K Blakemore; Paxton Voigt; Mindy R Schiffman; Shelley Lee; Andria G Besser; M Elizabeth Fino
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-07-13       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 7.  Fresh versus cryopreserved oocyte donation.

Authors:  Vitaly A Kushnir; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.243

8.  Comparison of pregnancy outcomes in anonymous shared versus exclusive donor oocyte in vitro fertilization cycles.

Authors:  Christine M Mullin; M Elizabeth Fino; Sheeva Talebian; Debbra Keegan; Jamie A Grifo; Frederick Licciardi
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Association of Fresh Embryo Transfers Compared With Cryopreserved-Thawed Embryo Transfers With Live Birth Rate Among Women Undergoing Assisted Reproduction Using Freshly Retrieved Donor Oocytes.

Authors:  Iris G Insogna; Andrea Lanes; Malinda S Lee; Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Janis H Fox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  New national outcome data on fresh versus cryopreserved donor oocytes.

Authors:  Vitaly A Kushnir; Sarah K Darmon; David H Barad; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 4.234

View more
  1 in total

1.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies does not increase success rates in fresh oocyte donation cycles: a paired cohort study.

Authors:  Carolina Lumertz Martello; Marcos Iuri Roos Kulmann; Luiza Mezzomo Donatti; Adriana Bos-Mikich; Nilo Frantz
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 3.412

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.