Time to Live Birth: Towards a Common Agreement

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2023 Apr 18

PMID 37071319

Authors

Monica Marques

Patricia Rodrigues

Juan Aibar

Maria Jose Carvalho

Carlos E Plancha

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The major purpose of a couple at the first infertility appointment is to get a healthy baby as soon as possible. From diagnosis and decision on which assisted reproduction technique (ART) and controlled ovarian stimulation, to the selection of which embryo to transfer, the dedicated team of physicians and embryologists puts all efforts to shorten the time to pregnancy and live birth. Time seems thus central in assisted reproduction, and we can conveniently use it as a measure of treatment efficiency. How can we measure time to live birth? What timelines do we need to consider to evaluate efficiency? In this paper, we will discuss the importance of "Time" as a fundamental parameter for measuring ART success.

Citing Articles

Searching for answers to the problem of TIME in human ARTs.

Albertini D J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(2):237-238.

PMID: 38372881 PMC: 10894786. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03063-3.

References

Malizia B, Hacker M, Penzias A . Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3):236-43. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0803072. View

Fischer C, Scott Jr R . Three simple metrics to define in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2020; 114(1):6-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.056. View

Sunkara S, Zheng W, DHooghe T, Longobardi S, Boivin J . Time as an outcome measure in fertility-related clinical studies: long-awaited. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(8):1732-1739. PMC: 7398622. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa138. View

Duffy J, AlAhwany H, Bhattacharya S, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers J . Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(12):2725-2734. PMC: 7744160. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa241. View

Lambalk C, Banga F, Huirne J, Toftager M, Pinborg A, Homburg R . GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update. 2017; 23(5):560-579. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmx017. View

Ho V, Braam S, Pham T, Mol B, Vuong L . The effectiveness and safety of in vitro maturation of oocytes versus in vitro fertilization in women with a high antral follicle count. Hum Reprod. 2019; 34(6):1055-1064. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez060. View

Cecchino G, Roque M, Cerrillo M, Filho R, Chiamba F, Hatty J . DuoStim cycles potentially boost reproductive outcomes in poor prognosis patients. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020; 37(6):519-522. DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2020.1822804. View

Bosch E, Bulletti C, Copperman A, Fanchin R, Yarali H, Petta C . How time to healthy singleton delivery could affect decision-making during infertility treatment: a Delphi consensus. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018; 38(1):118-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.09.019. View

Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken R, Harbottle S, Mocanu E . Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for 'add-on' interventions?. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(3):485-491. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex004. View

10.

Sacchi L, Albani E, Cesana A, Smeraldi A, Parini V, Fabiani M . Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy Improves Clinical, Gestational, and Neonatal Outcomes in Advanced Maternal Age Patients Without Compromising Cumulative Live-Birth Rate. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36(12):2493-2504. PMC: 6911117. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01609-4. View

11.

Reignier A, Lefebvre T, Loubersac S, Lammers J, Barriere P, Freour T . Time-lapse technology improves total cumulative live birth rate and shortens time to live birth as compared to conventional incubation system in couples undergoing ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(4):917-923. PMC: 8079526. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02099-z. View

12.

Glujovsky D, Farquhar C . Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms?. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(2):244-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.029. View

13.

Clua E, Rodriguez I, Arroyo G, Racca A, Martinez F, Polyzos N . Blastocyst versus cleavage embryo transfer improves cumulative live birth rates, time and cost in oocyte recipients: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022; 44(6):995-1004. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.01.001. View

14.

Ferrick L, Lee Y, Gardner D . Reducing time to pregnancy and facilitating the birth of healthy children through functional analysis of embryo physiology†. Biol Reprod. 2019; 101(6):1124-1139. DOI: 10.1093/biolre/ioz005. View

15.

Price S, Sumithran P, Prendergast L, Nankervis A, Permezel M, Proietto J . Time to pregnancy after a prepregnancy very-low-energy diet program in women with obesity: substudy of a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2020; 114(6):1256-1262. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.06.033. View

16.

Vanegas J, Chavarro J, Williams P, Ford J, Toth T, Hauser R . Discrete survival model analysis of a couple's smoking pattern and outcomes of assisted reproduction. Fertil Res Pract. 2017; 3. PMC: 5416813. DOI: 10.1186/s40738-017-0032-2. View

17.

Gleicher N, Kushnir V, Albertini D, Barad D . Improvements in IVF in women of advanced age. J Endocrinol. 2016; 230(1):F1-6. DOI: 10.1530/JOE-16-0105. View

18.

Murugesu S, Kasaven L, Petrie A, Vaseekaran A, Jones B, Bracewell-Milnes T . Does advanced paternal age affect outcomes following assisted reproductive technology? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022; 45(2):283-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.031. View