Survey report of gamete donors' and recipients' preferences regarding disclosure of third party reproduction outcomes and genetic risk information.

AIM: Issues surrounding egg donation informed consent have recently been spotlighted due to advances in medical genetics. We sought information on attitudes and desires of donors and recipients to craft a program policy on counseling, disclosures, and re-contacting participants. METHODS: Between April 2003 and September 2006 we conducted a questionnaire-based evaluation in our oocyte donor program. Donors pre-donation (n=265) and those undergoing the process (n=60), and recipients either ante- or postpartum (n=57), were asked about their desire to know/disclose obstetric outcomes (Question 1); willingness for contact in the event of a medical emergency (Question 2); and wish to know/disclose a liveborn's medical condition (Question 3). RESULTS: Pre-donation questioning among all donors generally revealed reticence to Question 1 (31% [n=83]), but were overall amenable with Questions 2 and 3 (83% [n=220] and 83% [n=219]). Following the donation process, no differences in Questions 1 and 2 were noted, but fewer donors were amenable with Question 3 (pre-donation 93% [n=56] versus post-donation 38% [n=23]; P<0.01). Overall, recipients were amenable to all three questions (88% [n=50], 74% [n=42] and 88% [n=50]), with similar responses both ante- and postpartum. CONCLUSION: All programs participating in gamete donation should establish a comprehensive disclosure policy, including consents that are built upon effective lines of communication between clinical staff and legal counsel assuring that parentage, relinquishment, and re-contact information in donor-recipient agreements are consistent with clinic consent documents and desires of both parties; All decisions must be adequately documented and honored and long-term counseling needs should be addressed.

Blastocyst embryo transfer is the primary determinant for improved outcomes in oocyte donation cycles.

AIM: Using oocyte donation cycles as an ideal model, we sought to compare pregnancy and implantation rates in cleavage stage (day 3) versus blastocyst stage (day 6) embryo transfers (ET); assess the predictive value of blastocyst formation rates based on cleavage cell stage and morphology grade; and evaluate the ability to predict formation of high quality (HQ) blastocysts. METHODS: Ninety three consecutive oocyte donation cycles from July 2003 to August 2005 were retrospectively evaluated and analyzed to determine if either resulted in a cleavage stage (n = 30) or blastocyst (n = 45) ET. The primary outcomes measured pregnancy rates, the percent development of HQ blastocysts based on day 3 embryo status, and the ability to select day 3 embryos suitable for transfer among four blinded evaluators by assessing their day 6 embryo outcome. RESULTS: Cleavage stage ET resulted in significantly lower pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and implantation rates (47% [n = 14/30]; 40% [n = 12/30] and 27 + or - 7%) compared to blastocyst stage (82% [n = 37/45]; 73% [n = 33/45] and 64 + or - 6% [+ or -SE], P < 0.01). In total, HQ blastocysts resulted from high and good quality day 3 embryos 35% (191/546) and 17% (93/546), respectively. Blinded evaluation revealed at least one, two or all three day 3 embryos were correctly selected for ET on day 6, 97%, 67% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Day 6 ET resulted in significantly better clinical outcomes compared to day 3 ET. While day 3 status is not predictive of blastocyst quality, the selection of at least one day 3 embryo ultimately suitable for blastocyst ET underscores the significance of optimal endometrial receptivity.

Interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing abdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer.

AIM: Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer appears to improve overall pregnancy outcomes for in vitro fertilization embryo transfer cycles. Most reports are done using a transabdominal ultrasound-guided approach, in contrast to a transvaginal ultrasound, which does not require a full bladder. We sought to determine if either approach was better with respect to clinical pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial took place in a university-based practice with an enrollment of 186 subjects. Secondary measures also included embryo transfer time and degree of cramping and pain, which subjects ranked as none = 1; mild = 2; moderate = 3; or severe = 4. RESULTS: There were no differences in implantation rates (33.1 + or - 4.1%, + or - standard error vs 31.1 + or - 3.9%, P = 0.78), pregnancy rates (60% vs 54%, P = 0.38), clinical pregnancy rates (48% vs 45%, P = 0.77), and live-birth rates (30% vs 39%, P = 0.37) between transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer groups. No differences were noted between groups for time required for embryo transfer (157 + or - 279 seconds vs 130 + or - 176 seconds, P = 0.92), uterine cramping (1.2 + or - 0.5 vs 1.2 + or - 0.4, P = 0.4), and the degree of pain (1.4 + or - 0.7 vs 1.3 + or - 0.5, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Neither transabdominal nor transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer is more beneficial in optimizing pregnancy outcomes. While delays often occur while waiting for bladder distension for transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer, uterine position, parity and level of physician comfort should dictate the choice of either approach.

Misoprostol With Foley Bulb Compared With Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that cervical ripening using a combination of misoprostol and a transcervical Foley bulb leads to delivery within a shorter time compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was offered to women admitted for cervical ripening. Inclusion criteria were gestational age 37 weeks or greater with intact membranes, singleton fetus, cephalic presentation, and Bishop score 6 or less. Exclusion criteria included, among others, prior uterine surgery, ruptured membranes, and any contraindication to vaginal delivery. Patients were randomized to cervical ripening using misoprostol and a transcervical Foley bulb simultaneously or misoprostol alone. Primary outcome was time from placement of the misoprostol to delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to active phase, time from active phase to delivery, cesarean delivery rate, uterine tachysystole, estimated blood loss, chorioamnionitis, cord pH, 5-minute Apgar score, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Sample size calculation revealed that 94 participants were required in each group to detect a 3-hour difference with 80% power and α error of 0.05. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: From September 2015 to July 2016, a total of 200 patients were randomized, 100 to each group. There were no differences between groups with respect to parity, body mass index, gestational age, Bishop score, birth weight, or indication for induction. Time to delivery was significantly shorter in the combined misoprostol-transcervical Foley group: 15.0 (11.0-21.8) hours (median [interquartile range]) vs 19.0 (14.0-27.3) hours in the misoprostol-only group (P=.001). This time difference remained significant after subanalysis by parity or after excluding cesarean deliveries. There was no difference between groups with respect to the rate or indication for cesarean delivery, estimated blood loss, rate of tachysystole, chorioamnionitis, or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Cervical ripening using misoprostol in combination with a transcervical Foley bulb is an effective method to shorten the course of labor compared with misoprostol alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566005.