Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hl5gf Total loading time: 1.013 Render date: 2023-01-27T19:25:04.886Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Section 8 - What Are Realistic Alternatives to Conceiving with Autologous Eggs?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2022

Dimitrios S. Nikolaou
Affiliation:
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London
David B. Seifer
Affiliation:
Yale Reproductive Medicine, New Haven, CT
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Melnick, A.P. and Rosenwaks, Z., Oocyte donation: insights gleaned and future challenges. Fertil Steril, 2018. 110(6): p. 988–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christianson, M.S. and Bellver, J., Innovations in assisted reproductive technologies: impact on contemporary donor egg practice and future advances. Fertil Steril, 2018. 110(6): p. 9941002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeh, J.S., et al., Pregnancy rates in donor oocyte cycles compared to similar autologous in vitro fertilization cycles: an analysis of 26,457 fresh cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril, 2014. 102(2): p. 399404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braverman, A.M. and Schlaff, W.D., End of anonymity: stepping into the dawn of communication and a new paradigm in gamete donor counseling. Fertil Steril, 2019. 111(6): p. 1102–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobo, A., Oocyte vitrification: a watershed in ART. Fertil Steril, 2012. 98(3): p. 600–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawwass, J.F., et al., Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000–2010. JAMA, 2013. 310(22): p. 2426–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Toner, J.P., Grainger, D.A., and Frazier, L.M., Clinical outcomes among recipients of donated eggs: an analysis of the U.S. national experience, 1996–1998. Fertil Steril, 2002. 78(5): p. 1038–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawwass, J.F., et al., Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000–2010. JAMA, 2013. 310(22): p. 2426–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Wennberg, A.L., et al., Effect of maternal age on maternal and neonatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(5): p. 1142–9.e14.Google ScholarPubMed
Ginström Ernstad, E., et al., Neonatal and maternal outcome after blastocyst transfer: a population-based registry study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2016. 214(3): p. 378.e1e10.Google ScholarPubMed
Kamath, M.S., et al., High-risk of preterm birth and low birth weight after oocyte donation IVF: analysis of 133,785 live births. Reprod Biomed Online, 2017. 35(3): p. 318324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, M.V., Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health. Fertil Steril, 2015. 103(5): p. 1136–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kort, D.H., et al., Pregnancy after age 50: defining risks for mother and child. Am J Perinatol, 2012. 29(4): p. 245–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Oocyte or embryo donation to women of advanced reproductive age: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(5): p. e3e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, S., et al., Cryopreserved oocyte versus fresh oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles, United States, 2013. Fertil Steril, 2017. 107(1): p. 110–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duarte, C.M., et al., Clinical pregnancy in frozen embryo transfer with fresh versus vitrified metaphase II oocytes in an egg donation program: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril, 2020. 114(3): p. e167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, K.N., et al., Oocyte efficiency: does live birth rate differ when analyzing cryopreserved and fresh oocytes on a per-oocyte basis? Fertil Steril, 2013. 100(3): p. 712–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrizio, P., et al., Ongoing implantations and baby per vitrified oocyte during third party reproduction. Fertil Steril, 2011. 96: p. S53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrizio, P. and Sakkas, D., From oocyte to baby: a clinical evaluation of the biological efficiency of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 2009. 91(4): p. 1061–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, J., et al., Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer in frozen donor egg IVF and preimplantation screening cycles. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106: p. e136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trokoudes, K.M., Pavlides, C., and Zhang, X., Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil Steril, 2011. 95(6): p. 19962000.Google Scholar
Arian, S., et al., Comparison of vitrified versus fresh donor oocytes. Fertil Steril, 2014. 101(2): p. e31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosseini Nasab, S., et al., Are outcomes from fresh donor oocytes still superior to frozen donor oocytes? Fertil Steril, 2018. 110(4): p. e340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2018. 110(7): p. 12461252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontopoulos, G., et al., Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in oocyte donation cycles. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2019. 55(6): p. 293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoolcraft, W.B. and Gardner, D.K., Blastocyst culture and transfer increases the efficiency of oocyte donation. Fertil Steril, 2000. 74(3): p. 482–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2017. 107(4): p. 901903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R., et al., A human in vivo model for the luteoplacental shift. Fertil Steril, 1991. 56(3): p. 481–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, L., et al., Effects of intramuscular and vaginal progesterone supplementation on frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Sci Rep, 2019. 9(1): p. 15264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyboe Andersen, A., et al., Progesterone supplementation during early gestations after IVF or ICSI has no effect on the delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod, 2002. 17(2): p. 357–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, S.-P., et al., Early stop of progesterone supplementation after confirmation of pregnancy in IVF/ICSI fresh embryo transfer cycles of poor responders does not affect pregnancy outcome. PloS one, 2018. 13(8): p. e0201824-e0201824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyrou, D., et al., Does cessation of progesterone supplementation during early pregnancy in patients treated with recFSH/GnRH antagonist affect ongoing pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod, 2011. 26(5): p. 1020–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eftekhar, M., Rahsepar, M., and Rahmani, E., Effect of progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Fertil Steril, 2013. 7(1): p. 1320.Google ScholarPubMed
Bjuresten, K., et al., Luteal phase progesterone increases live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer. Fertil Steril, 2011. 95(2): p. 534–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephenson, M.D., et al., Luteal start vaginal micronized progesterone improves pregnancy success in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril, 2017. 107(3): p. 684–90.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulson, R.J., Hormonal induction of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril, 2011. 96(3): p. 530–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulson, R.J., Introduction: Endometrial receptivity: evaluation, induction and inhibition. Fertil Steril, 2019. 111(4): p. 609–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pabuçcu, E., et al., Luteal phase support in fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod, 2020. 49(10): p. 101838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, R.F., Frozen embryo transfer: evidence-based markers for successful endometrial preparation. Fertil Steril, 2020. 113(2): p. 248–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginstrom Ernstad, E., et al., Neonatal and maternal outcome after frozen embryo transfer: Increased risks in programmed cycles. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2019. 221(2):p. 126 e1–126 e18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, B., et al., In vitro fertilization and risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: associations with treatment parameters. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2020. 222(4):p. 350 e1–350 e13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peeraer, K., et al., Frozen-thawed embryo transfer in a natural or mildly hormonally stimulated cycle in women with regular ovulatory cycles: a RCT. Hum Reprod, 2015. 30(11): p. 2552–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saito, K., et al., Endometrial preparation methods for frozen-thawed embryo transfer are associated with altered risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placenta accreta, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Hum Reprod, 2019. 34(8): p. 1567–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Versen-Hoynck, F., et al., Absent or excessive corpus luteum number is associated with altered maternal vascular health in early pregnancy. Hypertension, 2019. 73(3): p. 680–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Versen-Hoynck, F., et al., Increased preeclampsia risk and reduced aortic compliance with in vitro fertilization cycles in the absence of a corpus luteum. Hypertension, 2019. 73(3): p. 640–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zong, L., et al., Increased risk of maternal and neonatal complications in hormone replacement therapy cycles in frozen embryo transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2020. 18(1): p. 36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan-Dawood, F.S., et al., Human corpus luteum secretion of relaxin, oxytocin, and progesterone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1989. 68(3): p. 627–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, B., et al., Frozen-thawed embryo transfer: the potential importance of the corpus luteum in preventing obstetrical complications. Fertil Steril, 2020. 113(2): p. 252–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Guidelines for oocyte donation. Fertil Steril, 2004. 82 Suppl 1: p. S13–5.Google Scholar
Administration, F.a.D. Donor Eligibility Final Rule and Guidance Questions and Answers. 2018; Available from: Donor Eligibility Final Rule and Guidance Questions and Answers.Google Scholar
Oocyte or embryo donation to women of advanced reproductive age: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(5): p. e3e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cano, F., et al., Effect of aging on the female reproductive system: evidence for a role of uterine senescence in the decline in female fecundity. Fertil Steril, 1995. 64(3): p. 584–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellicer, A., Simon, C., and Remohi, J., Effects of aging on the female reproductive system. Hum Reprod, 1995. 10(suppl 2): p. 7783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, S.M., et al., Endometrial response to IVF hormonal manipulation: Comparative analysis of menopausal, down regulated and natural cycles. Reprod Biol and Endocrinol, 2004. 2(1): p. 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2013. 99(1): p. 47–62.e1.Google Scholar
Madeira, J.L. and Crockin, S.L., Legal principles and seminal legal cases in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril, 2018. 110(7): p. 1209–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinehart, L.A., Storage, transport, and disposition of gametes and embryos: legal issues and practical considerations. Fertil Steril, 2021. 115(2): p. 274–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermeiden, J.P. and Bernardus, R.E., Are imprinting disorders more prevalent after human in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection? Fertil Steril, 2013. 99(3): p. 642–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barberet, J., et al., What impact does oocyte vitrification have on epigenetics and gene expression? Clin Epigenetics, 2020. 12(1): p. 121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A., et al., Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril, 2014. 102(4): p. 1006–15.e4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, N., et al., Donor oocyte recipients do not benefit from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy to improve pregnancy outcomes. Hum Reprod, 2020. 35(11): p. 2548–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, D.H., et al., Impact of preimplantation genetic screening on donor oocyte-recipient cycles in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017. 217(5): p. 576.e1–576.e8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonhoff, A., Johannisson, E., and Bohnet, H.G., Morphometric analysis of the endometrium of infertile patients in relation to peripheral hormone levels. Fertil Steril, 1990. 54(1): p. 84–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Lessey, B.A., et al., Integrins as markers of uterine receptivity in women with primary unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril, 1995. 63(3): p. 535–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, R.T., et al., Evaluation of the impact of intraobserver variability on endometrial dating and the diagnosis of luteal phase defects. Fertil Steril, 1993. 60(4): p. 652–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, J., et al., The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2018. 35(4): p. 683–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassil, R., et al., Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer? J Assist Reprod Genet, 2018. 35(7): p. 1301–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kliman, H.J. and Frankfurter, D., Clinical approach to recurrent implantation failure: evidence-based evaluation of the endometrium. Fertil Steril, 2019. 111(4): p. 618–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kliman, H.J., et al., Optimization of endometrial preparation results in a normal endometrial function test (EFT) and good reproductive outcome in donor ovum recipients. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2006. 23(7–8): p. 299303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans-Hoeker, E., et al., Endometrial BCL6 overexpression in eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis. Reprod Sci, 2016. 23(9): p. 1234–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almquist, L.D., et al., Endometrial BCL6 testing for the prediction of in vitro fertilization outcomes: a cohort study. Fertil Steril, 2017. 108(6): p. 1063–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soriano, D., et al., Fertility outcome of laparoscopic treatment in patients with severe endometriosis and repeated in vitro fertilization failures. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(5): p. 1264–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littman, E., et al., Role of laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis in patients with failed in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril, 2005. 84(6): p. 1574–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×