Literature DB >> 35587300

Disposition preferences in oocyte preservation patients.

Anne P Hutchinson1, Shweta Hosakoppal1, Kathryn A Trotter1, Rafael Confino1, John Zhang1, Susan C Klock1, Angela K Lawson1, Mary Ellen Pavone2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To characterize the frozen oocyte disposition preferences of patients undergoing medical and planned fertility preservation.
METHODS: All oocyte cryopreservation (OC) patients were identified between 2015 and 2018. Demographic information and fertility preservation (FP) indication (medical or planned) were identified for each patient. Oocyte disposition options included disposal, donation to research, or donation to a specified third party, which was decided at the time of initial consent and made available in the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was the disposition selection. Secondary outcomes included differences in demographic variables and disposition selections between medical and planned FP patients using chi-squared analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 336 OC patients with a documented oocyte disposition preference were identified in the study timeframe. Patients were on average 34.5 years old (SD = 5.1) and were predominantly White (70.2%), nulliparous (83.0%), with a BMI of 24.7 (SD = 5.4). A total of 101 patients underwent OC for medical FP and 235 for planned FP. In both groups, the most commonly selected disposition option was donation to research (50% planned, 52% medical), followed by donation to a specified third party (30% planned, 30% medical), and finally disposal of oocytes (20% planned, 18% medical). There were no significant differences in disposition selection between each group. When comparing patient variables between groups, medical FP patients were more likely to be under the age of 35 and were less likely to be nulliparous (p < .001).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that oocyte disposition choices are similar in patients undergoing OC for medical and planned indications. As donation to research was the most commonly selected option in both groups, it is time to start thinking of streamlining ways to utilize this potential research material in the future.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disposal preferences; Fertility preservation; IVF

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35587300      PMCID: PMC9365913          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02518-9

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


  31 in total

1.  Mean Age of Mothers is on the Rise: United States, 2000-2014.

Authors:  T J Mathews; Brady E Hamilton
Journal:  NCHS Data Brief       Date:  2016-01

2.  Recent trends in embryo disposition choices made by patients following in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Vinita M Alexander; Joan K Riley; Emily S Jungheim
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Parent identity and 'virtual' children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos.

Authors:  Sheryl de Lacey
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2005-03-10       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation.

Authors:  V Söderström-Anttila
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: a survey of couples' decisions and the factors influencing their choice.

Authors:  Karin Hammarberg; Leesa Tinney
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Disposition intentions of elective egg freezers toward their surplus frozen oocytes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lucy E Caughey; Sarah Lensen; Katherine M White; Michelle Peate
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2021-08-25       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Fertility patients' views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey.

Authors:  Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Karen Steinhauser; Corrine Voils; Emily Namey; Carolyn Alexander; Brandon Bankowski; Robert Cook-Deegan; William C Dodson; Elena Gates; Emily S Jungheim; Peter G McGovern; Evan R Myers; Barbara Osborn; William Schlaff; Jeremy Sugarman; James A Tulsky; David Walmer; Ruth R Faden; Edward Wallach
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2008-12-05       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into patients' thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos.

Authors:  Sheryl de Lacey
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2007-04-07       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  Clinical outcomes and utilization from over a decade of planned oocyte cryopreservation.

Authors:  Angela Q Leung; Katherine Baker; Denis Vaughan; Jaimin S Shah; Ann Korkidakis; David A Ryley; Denny Sakkas; Thomas L Toth
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.828

10.  Patient-centered elective egg freezing: a binational qualitative study of best practices for women's quality of care.

Authors:  Marcia C Inhorn; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli; Lynn M Westphal; Joseph Doyle; Norbert Gleicher; Dror Meirow; Martha Dirnfeld; Daniel Seidman; Arik Kahane; Pasquale Patrizio
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-05-18       Impact factor: 3.412

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.