Jennifer F Knudtson1, Randal D Robinson2, Amy E Sparks3, Micah J Hill4, T Arthur Chang2, Bradley J Van Voorhis3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. Electronic address: jknudtson@aspirefertility.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa. 4. Program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Gynecology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate similarities and differences in clinical and laboratory practices among high-performing fertility clinics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire study of selected programs. SETTING: Academic and private fertility practices performing in vitro fertilization (IVF). PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): A comprehensive survey was conducted of 13 IVF programs performing at least 100 cycles a year and having high cumulative singleton delivery rates for 2 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical and laboratory IVF practices. RESULT(S): Although many areas of clinical practice varied among top programs, some commonalities were observed. All programs used a combination of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone for IVF stimulation, intramuscular progesterone in frozen embryo transfer cycles, ultrasound-guided embryo transfers, and a required semen analysis before starting the IVF cycle. Common laboratory practices included vitrification of embryos at the blastocyst stage, air quality control with positive air pressure and high-efficiency particulate air filtration, use of incubator gas filters, working on heated microscope stages, and incubating embryos in a low-oxygen environment, most often in benchtop incubators. CONCLUSION(S): Some areas of consistency in clinical and laboratory practices were noted among high-performing IVF programs that are likely contributing to their success. High-performing programs focused on singleton deliveries. As the field of IVF is rapidly evolving, it is imperative that we share best practices in an effort to improve outcomes from all clinics for the good of our patients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate similarities and differences in clinical and laboratory practices among high-performing fertility clinics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire study of selected programs. SETTING: Academic and private fertility practices performing in vitro fertilization (IVF). PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): A comprehensive survey was conducted of 13 IVF programs performing at least 100 cycles a year and having high cumulative singleton delivery rates for 2 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical and laboratory IVF practices. RESULT(S): Although many areas of clinical practice varied among top programs, some commonalities were observed. All programs used a combination of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone for IVF stimulation, intramuscular progesterone in frozen embryo transfer cycles, ultrasound-guided embryo transfers, and a required semen analysis before starting the IVF cycle. Common laboratory practices included vitrification of embryos at the blastocyst stage, air quality control with positive air pressure and high-efficiency particulate air filtration, use of incubator gas filters, working on heated microscope stages, and incubating embryos in a low-oxygen environment, most often in benchtop incubators. CONCLUSION(S): Some areas of consistency in clinical and laboratory practices were noted among high-performing IVF programs that are likely contributing to their success. High-performing programs focused on singleton deliveries. As the field of IVF is rapidly evolving, it is imperative that we share best practices in an effort to improve outcomes from all clinics for the good of our patients.
Authors: Kirstine Kirkegaard; Johnny Juhl Hindkjaer; Marie Louise Grøndahl; Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel; Hans Jakob Ingerslev Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Tesia G Kim; Michael F Neblett; Lisa M Shandley; Kenan Omurtag; Heather S Hipp; Jennifer F Kawwass Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Micah J Hill; Mae Wu Healy; Kevin S Richter; Toral Parikh; Kate Devine; Alan H DeCherney; Michael Levy; Eric Widra; George Patounakis Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Emily S Jungheim; Ginny L Ryan; Eric D Levens; Alexandra F Cunningham; George A Macones; Kenneth R Carson; Angeline N Beltsos; Randall R Odem Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-09-11 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Mohamed M A Youssef; Eleni Mantikou; Madelon van Wely; Fulco Van der Veen; Hesham G Al-Inany; Sjoerd Repping; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-11-20
Authors: Giulia Scaravelli; Valerio Pisaturo; Paolo Emanuele Levi Setti; Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Claudia Livi; Andrea Borini; Ermanno Greco; Maria Teresa Villani; Maria Elisabetta Coccia; Alberto Revelli; Giuseppe Ricci; Francesco Fusi; Mauro Costa; Emanuela Migliorati; Roberto De Luca; Vincenzo Vigiliano; Simone Bolli; Marco Reschini Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 3.357