Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Medical and elective fertility preservation: impact of removal of the experimental label from oocyte cryopreservation.
Schon, Samantha B; Shapiro, Maren; Gracia, Clarisa; Senapati, Suneeta.
Afiliación
  • Schon SB; Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. sschon@mail.med.umich.edu.
  • Shapiro M; Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, L4000 UH-South, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. sschon@mail.med.umich.edu.
  • Gracia C; University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
  • Senapati S; Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
J Assist Reprod Genet ; 34(9): 1207-1215, 2017 Sep.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28656539
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and ovarian stimulation outcomes between patients presenting for medically indicated vs. elective fertility preservation consultation and to determine the impact of the 2013 ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation on the patient population presenting for fertility preservation consultation. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic center. Study population included 332 patients presenting for medically indicated fertility preservation consultation and 210 patients presenting for elective consultation. RESULTS: Patients presenting for elective fertility preservation consultation were more likely to be of advanced age, non-Caucasian, highly educated, single, nulligravid, and meet criteria for diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Additionally, patients presenting electively were more likely to have fertility insurance benefits. A higher percentage of patients with insurance benefits for oocyte cryopreservation proceeded to stimulation. There were no differences in stimulation parameters or number of retrieved oocytes between the groups when adjusted for age. Following release of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation, there was no difference in the percentage of patients in the medical group who proceeded with stimulation; however, a higher percentage of patients presenting electively underwent ovarian stimulation. CONCLUSION: Although the populations presenting for medical compared with elective fertility preservation differ at baseline, ovarian stimulation parameters and outcomes are similar when adjusted for age. Insurance benefits for fertility preservation are not comprehensive and impact the decision to proceed with stimulation in all patients. The publication of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation increased utilization of this technology among patients presenting electively; however, they remained at an advanced age and with decreased ovarian reserve parameters.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Oocitos / Criopreservación / Preservación de la Fertilidad Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Assist Reprod Genet Asunto de la revista: GENETICA / MEDICINA REPRODUTIVA Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Oocitos / Criopreservación / Preservación de la Fertilidad Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Assist Reprod Genet Asunto de la revista: GENETICA / MEDICINA REPRODUTIVA Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Países Bajos