Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on May 11, 2006
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/del138
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Center For Human Reproduction, New York, NY; Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, Chicago, IL; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. In this study, we compared pregnancy and delivery outcomes after the utilization of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Europe and the United States (US). ART outcomes were compared between Europe and the US for the year 2001, based on formal reports published by the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and Society for ART (SART). Europe utilizes ART at approximately twice the rate of the US (P < 0.001). United States patients showed a significantly decreased likelihood of reaching oocyte retrieval (P < 0.001) and embryo transfer (P < 0.001). Despite this lower chance of reaching oocyte retrievals and embryo transfers, US patients experienced significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates (P < 0.001) and delivery rates per started cycle (P < 0.001) than European patients. Amongst patients reaching oocyte retrieval, the difference in clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates was even more pronounced in favour of the US. However, US patients received significantly more embryos per embryo transfer (P < 0.001) and experienced a significantly higher multiple pregnancy rate (P < 0.001). Significant differences in favour of US patients in pregnancy rates and live birth rates were also observed for frozen embryo cycles and oocyte donation cycles, where the difference was most pronounced. The better pregnancy and live birth outcomes in the US are not explainable by the transfer of larger embryo numbers alone.
Received January 9, 2006
Revised February 15, 2006
Accepted February 17, 2006
New Debate
A formal comparison of the practice of assisted reproductive technologies between Europe and the USA
Norbert Gleicher 1 *,
Andrea Weghofer 1,
and
David Barad 2
2 Center For Human Reproduction, New York, NY; Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, Chicago, IL; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
Norbert Gleicher, E-mail: ngleicher{at}thechr.com
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Devroey, R. Boostanfar, N.P. Koper, B.M.J.L. Mannaerts, P.C. IJzerman-Boon, B.C.J.M. Fauser, and on behalf of the ENGAGE Investigators A double-blind, non-inferiority RCT comparing corifollitropin alfa and recombinant FSH during the first seven days of ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol Hum. Reprod., August 14, 2009; (2009) dep291v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Garel, B. Blondel, L. Karpel, V. Blanchet, G. Breart, R. Frydman, and F. Olivennes Patient attitudes towards twin pregnancies and SET: a questionnaire study Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1232 - 1233. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.O. Karlstrom and C. Bergh Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden-impact on delivery and multiple birth rates Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2007; 22(8): 2202 - 2207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Gleicher, A. Weghofer, and D. Barad On the benefit of assisted reproduction techniques, a comparison of the USA and Europe Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2007; 22(2): 624 - 626. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|