Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Review

Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004–2013

Authors: Vitaly A. Kushnir, David H. Barad, David F. Albertini, Sarah K. Darmon, Norbert Gleicher

Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) has undergone considerable changes over the last decade, with consequences on ART outcomes in different regions of the world being unknown.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of published national and regional ART registry data to assess how changes in clinical practice between 2004 and 2013 have impacted outcomes in Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Continental Europe, the United Kingdom (U.K.), Japan, Latin America, and the United States (U.S.). The data reflect 7,079,145 total ART cycles utilizing both fresh and previously cryopreserved embryos from autologous oocytes that resulted in 1,454,724 live births. This review focused on the following measures: ART cycle volume, use of cryopreserved embryos, single embryo transfer (SET), live birth rates in fresh and frozen-thawed cycles, and perinatal outcomes in recent years.

Results

SETs and utilization of frozen-thawed embryos increased worldwide over the study period. In 2012 SET utilization in all ART cycles was highest in Japan and Australia/New Zealand (82.6% and 76.3% respectively) and lowest in Latin America (16.0%). While gradual improvements in live birth rates were observed in most regions, some demonstrated declines. By 2012–2013, fresh cycle live birth rates were highest in the U.S. (29%) and lowest in Japan (5%). In Japan, the observed decline in fresh cycle live birth rate coincided with transition to minimal stimulation protocols, transfer of frozen-thawed rather than fresh embryos, and implementation of an SET policy. Similarly, implementation of an SET policy in parts of Canada was followed by a decline in fresh cycle live birth rate. Increasing live birth rates in frozen-thawed embryo cycles, seen all over the world, partially compensated for declines in fresh ART cycles. During 2012–2013 Australia/New Zealand and Japan reported the lowest multiple delivery rates of 5.6 and 4% respectively while the US had the highest of 27%. In recent years, preterm delivery rates in all regions ranged between 9.0 to 16.6% for singletons, 53.9 to 67.3% for twins, and 91.4 to 100% for triplets and higher order multiples. Inconsistencies in the way perinatal outcome data are presented by various registries, made comparison between regions difficult.

Conclusions

ART practices are characterized by outcome differences between regions. International consensus on the definition of ART success, which accounts for perinatal outcomes, may help to standardize worldwide ART practice and improve outcomes.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42016033011)
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Williams RS, Doody KJ, Schattman GL, Adashi EY. Public reporting of assisted reproductive technology outcomes: past, present, and future. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(2):157–62.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Kushnir VA, Vidali A, Barad DH, Gleicher N. The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):736–41.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.
4.
Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):156–62.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG. Comprehensive chromosome screening of trophectoderm with vitrification facilitates elective single-embryo transfer for infertile women with advanced maternal age. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):615–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):936–45.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Teramoto S, Kato O. Minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a large-scale retrospective study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15(2):134–48.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kato K, Takehara Y, Segawa T, Kawachiya S, Okuno T, Kobayashi T, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation combined with elective single embryo transfer policy: age-specific results of a large, single-centre, Japanese cohort. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, Banker M, Adamson GD. International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(7):1588–609.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
12.
13.
Kupka MS, D’Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, Castilla JA, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Goossens V. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):233–48.PubMed
14.
15.
16.
Zegers-Hochschild F, Schwarze JE, Crosby JA, Musri C, Urbina MT. Latin American network of assisted reproduction (REDLARA). assisted reproductive techniques in Latin america: the Latin American registry, 2013. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2016;20(2):49–58.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Takeshima K, Jwa SC, Saito H, Nakaza A, Kuwahara A, Ishihara O, et al. Impact of single embryo transfer policy on perinatal outcomes in fresh and frozen cycles-analysis of the Japanese assisted reproduction technology registry between 2007 and 2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):337–46. e3.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Bissonnette F, Phillips SJ, Gunby J, Holzer H, Mahutte N, St-Michel P, et al. Working to eliminate multiple pregnancies: a success story in Québec. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(4):500–4.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Gleicher N. Eliminating multiple pregnancies: an appropriate target for government intervention? Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(4):403–6.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Tomás C, Tapanainen J, Orava M, Tuomivaara L, Vilska S, Hydén-Granskog C, Hovatta O. One versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(9):1900–3.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kissin DM, Crawford S, Boulet SL. The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):e16–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Effect of embryo banking on U.S. National assisted reproductive technology live birth rates. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0154620.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. A formal comparison of the practice of assisted reproductive technologies between Europe and the USA. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(8):1945–50.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. Update on the comparison of assisted reproduction outcomes between Europe and the USA: the 2002 data. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1301–5.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Nygren K, Andersen AN, Felberbaum R, Gianaroli L, de Mouzon J. ESHRE’s European IVF Monitoring (EIM). On the benefit of assisted reproduction techniques, a comparison of the USA and Europe. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(8):2194.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):3–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening: a reanalysis of United States assisted reproductive technology data 2011–2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):75–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zhang J, Chang L, Sone Y, Silber S. Minimal ovarian stimulation (mini-IVF) for IVF utilizing vitrification and cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(4):485–95.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zhang JJ, Merhi Z, Yang M, Bodri D, Chavez-Badiola A, Repping S, et al. Minimal Stimulation IVF versus Conventional IVF: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015.
35.
Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Low-intensity IVF: real progress? Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(3):274–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Chambers GM, Chughtai AA, Farquhar CM, Wang YA. Risk of preterm birth after blastocyst embryo transfer: a large population study using contemporary registry data from Australia and New Zealand. Fertil Steril 2015.
37.
De Neubourg D, Bogaerts K, Wyns C, et al. The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(10):2709–19.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Peeraer K, Debrock S, Laenen A, et al. The impact of legally restricted embryo transfer and reimbursement policy on cumulative delivery rate after treatment with assisted reproduction technology. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(2):267–75.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Olivienne F. Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART. Double trouble: yes a twin pregnancy is an adverse outcome. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1663–5.CrossRef
40.
41.
Gleicher N, Barad D. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2426–31.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004;328(7434):261.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Declercq E, Luke B, Belanoff C, et al. Perinatal outcomes associated with assisted reproductive technology: the Massachusetts outcomes study of assisted reproductive technologies (MOSART). Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):888–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):835–42.CrossRef
45.
Gleicher N, Vega MV, Darmon SK, Weghofer A, Wu YG, Wang Q, Zhang L, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Kushnir VA. Live-birth rates in very poor prognosis patients, who are defined as poor responders under the Bologna criteria, with nonelective single embryo, two-embryo, and three or more embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1435–41.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Vega MG, Gleicher N, Darmon SK, Weghofer A, Wu YG, Wang Q, Zhang L, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Kushnir VA. IVF outcomes in average- and poor-prognosis infertile women according to the number of embryos transferred. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(3):370–5.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Min JK, Breheny SA, MacLachlan V, Healy DL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(1):3–7.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Kushnir VA, Jamieson DJ, National ART Surveillance System Group. Number of embryos transferred after in vitro fertilization and good perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):239–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004–2013
Authors
Vitaly A. Kushnir
David H. Barad
David F. Albertini
Sarah K. Darmon
Norbert Gleicher
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7827
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0225-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

In vitro progesterone production by luteinized human mural granulosa cells is modulated by activation of AMPK and cause of infertility

Research

Determining optimal gestational weight gain in the Korean population: a retrospective cohort study

Research

Oocyte polarized light microscopy, assay of specific follicular fluid metabolites, and gene expression in cumulus cells as different approaches to predict fertilization efficiency after ICSI

Research

Feedback inhibition of CREB signaling by p38 MAPK contributes to the negative regulation of steroidogenesis

Research

An inverse association between serum soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products and hyperandrogenism and potential implication in polycystic ovary syndrome patients

Research

Effect of different artificial shrinkage methods, when applied before blastocyst vitrification, on perinatal outcomes