IVF Pregnancy Rates & Outcomes
We are pleased to offer CHR's 2010 IVF pregnancy rates. Please remember that the rates reported here, as in past years, represent ongoing pregnancy rates, signed out into obstetrical care. Delivery rates are, of course, not yet available for the year 2010, and will, as always, be reported to and through the national CDC and SART databases. Clinical pregnancy rates are reported with reference point embryo transfer (pregnancy rate/embryo transfer) and not cycle start, meaning that only patients who reach embryo transfer are counted. If you are looking at IVF success rates to determine which IVF center to go for treatment, you should read our detailed guide on how IVF success rates should be interpreted.
Delivery rates can be anticipated to be somewhat lower than ongoing pregnancy rates, since additional pregnancy losses can be expected. As we repeatedly reported (including in peer reviewed papers), CHR's miscarriage rate, especially considering the center's very adversely selected patient population, is unusually low, a finding attributable to CHR's use of DHEA supplementation in all women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), whether young or older. If pregnancy rates are calculated per cycle start, they, of course, also are lower.
As in past years, we wish to point out that comparisons of clinical pregnancy rates between IVF centers may not be meaningful because patient characteristics and treatment approaches greatly vary between individual IVF centers. This is probably nowhere more obvious than at CHR, where a very large majority of patients, independent of their age, suffer from severely diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Yet, this fact renders CHR's 2010 outcome data especially remarkable.
Fresh IVF Cycles
| Patient Age (years) | Clinical Pregnancy Rate (%) |
| < 30* | 10 |
| 30-35 | 40.4 |
| 36-37 | 25 |
| 38-39 | 17.9 |
| 40 | 28.6 |
| 41 | 29.4 |
| 42 | 21.4 |
| 43** | 0 |
≥ 44 |
4.7 |
* Reflects only 10 cycles; ** reflects only 6 cycles;
IVF Success Rates Video
Dr. Norbert Gleicher explains how IVF success rates are calculated.
Comments
IVF pregnancy rates presented here would be considered excellent in any IVF program. Considering, however, CHR's extremely adversely selected patient population, they are remarkable, almost astonishing. As reported before (including in a recent peer reviewed publication), CHR's patient population has been dramatically aging. In 2009 alone, the mean age increased from 36.0 to 39.5 years [CHR Voice]. In parallel, ovarian reserve in our young patients has, based on AMH evaluations, been dramatically decreasing. These trends, of course, have been continuing during 2010 because CHR is increasingly attracting women from all over the world who previously have failed treatments elsewhere.
"Young" patients at CHR, therefore, are not necessarily the same as young patients at other IVF centers, since most present with elevated FSH and/or low AMH, suffering from premature ovarian aging (POA).
This is what renders CHR's clinical pregnancy rates so remarkable, but also explains some of the observed peculiarities: For example, youngest women usually have the highest pregnancy rates, but as above table demonstrates, CHR's youngest patients have only a very low pregnancy rate of 10%. This may represent a statistical artifact, since, in line with above noted aging of CHR's patient population, there were only 10 women under age 30 undergoing IVF at our center. More likely, however, it reflects the fact that if a woman of such young age seeks help at CHR, she comes to us with very high FSH or very low AMH.
Looking at age 30 to 40 years, the average pregnancy rate was 29.2%. Considering once again CHR's patient population, this is a spectacular pregnancy rate. Even at ages 41 to 42 years, the rates are still spectacular, at 29.4 and 21.4%, respectively. We did not record pregnancy rates at age 43 years because, for some reason, we had only 6 cycles in this age group. Most remarkably, at and above age 44 (going up to age 49), our clinical pregnancy rate was 4.7%. While this at first glance, of course, is a low pregnancy rate, considering the age of these 43 patients (quite a good sample size!) these outcomes are, likely, unmatched anywhere in the world, and represent a considerable improvement (24%) from the 3.8% clinical pregnancy rate in this age group in the preceding year 2009.
To be able to offer an approximately 5% ongoing clinical pregnancy rate to women with severe DOR at age 44 or above, if they have at least one embryo (i.e., reach embryo transfer), is nothing but spectacular. Considering further the relatively low miscarriage rate of these patients after DHEA supplementation, this outcome experience is unique to CHR.
ECO-IVF Cycles (at other centers offered under various names, like “Mini IVF,” etc.)
| Measure | Pregnancy Rate (%) |
| Clinical Pregnancy Rate | 42.8 |
Comments
Here, too, CHR demonstrated improvement over preceding years. Though, because of CHR's adverse patient population, proportionally to most other IVF centers, CHR does fewer frozen-thawed cycles, the 2010 clinical pregnancy rate of 28.3% (in 60 such cycles) reflects a nice improvement over preceding years, especially considering who the patients are who produced these frozen embryos.
Donor-Recipient (Egg Donation) Cycles
| Measure | Pregnancy Rate (%) |
| Clinical Pregnancy Rate | 50 |
Comments
CHR's pregnancy rate in egg donation cycles dropped slightly in 2010, and was exactly 50.0%. There were two very obvious reasons for this: First, an increasing number of recipients in 2010, in comparison to prior years when this was a very rare occurrence, wanted only a single embryo transferred. CHR's routine policy, if patients are open to having twins, is transfer of two embryos. Reducing the number of embryos transferred to one, of course, reduces immediate pregnancy chances, though it will have less effect on cumulative pregnancy chances, including chances from frozen embryos.
Secondly, an increasing number of donor recipients, concomitantly, also requested gender selection. This additional embryo manipulation, of course, also to a minor degree negatively affects pregnancy chances (the effect has been estimated at approximately 8-15% with removal of a single cell).
Overall, recipient cycles represented, however, the cycle category showing the largest increase in demand during 2010. This is, likely, the consequence of CHR's quite remarkable egg donor pool, which allows for immediate matching for almost all ethnicities and religions.
Frozen-Thawed Cycles (FETs)
| Measure | Pregnancy Rate (%) |
| Clinical Pregnancy Rate | 28.3 |
Comments
Here, too, CHR demonstrated improvement over preceding years. Though, because of CHR's adverse patient population, proportionally to most other IVF centers, CHR does fewer frozen-thawed cycles, the 2010 clinical pregnancy rate of 28.3% (in 60 such cycles) reflects a nice improvement over preceding years, especially considering who the patients are who produced these frozen embryos.
Last Updated: October 20, 2011
