Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is younger better? Donor age less than 25 does not predict more favorable outcomes after in vitro fertilization

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether younger oocyte donor age is associated with better outcomes after in vitro fertilization (IVF) compared with older oocyte donor age.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Large academically affiliated infertility treatment center.

Patients

We included all women ≥ 18 years who started their first fresh cycle using donor oocytes at our center from January 2002 through October 2017; only the first oocyte recipient cycle was analyzed.

Intervention

Log-binomial regression was used to compare the incidence of clinical pregnancy and live birth among the following donor age groups: < 25 years, 25 to < 30 years, and 30 to <35 years.

Main outcome measure

Incidence of clinical pregnancy and live birth among donor age groups.

Results

We included 774 donor cycles; 269 (34.8%) used donors < 25 years, 399 (51.6%) used donors 25 to < 30 years, and 106 (13.7%) used donors 30 to < 35 years. Median donor age was 26 years (range 18–34.5), and median recipient age and partner age were both 42 years. Per cycle start, after adjusting for recipient age, cycles using donors < 25 years were not associated with a higher incidence of clinical pregnancy (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.77–1.06) or live birth (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.72–1.04) compared with donors age 25–< 30 years.

Conclusions

Donor age < 25 was not associated with better outcomes after IVF. Under the age of 30, the prioritization of <25 year old donors may not be recommended given the lack of evidence for superior pregnancy or live birth outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Budak E, Garrido N, Soares SR, Melo MA, Meseguer M, Pellicer A, et al. Improvements achieved in an oocyte donation program over a 10-year period: sequential increase in implantation and pregnancy rates and decrease in high-order multiple pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):342–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yeh JS, Steward RG, Dude AM, Shah AA, Goldfarb JM, Muasher SJ. Pregnancy outcomes decline in recipients over age 44: an analysis of 27,959 fresh donor oocyte in vitro fertilization cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1331–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Lederman A, Gibbons W, Schattman GL, et al. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(26):2483–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Paulson RJ, Hatch IE, Lobo RA, Sauer MV. Cumulative conception and live birth rates after oocyte donation: implications regarding endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(4):835–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Navot D, Bergh PA, Williams MA, Garrisi GJ, Guzman I, Sandler B, et al. Poor oocyte quality rather than implantation failure as a cause of age-related decline in female fertility. Lancet. 1991;337(8754):1375–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abdalla HI, Wren ME, Thomas A, Korea L. Age of the uterus does not affect pregnancy or implantation rates; a study of egg donation in women of different ages sharing oocytes from the same donor. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(4):827–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Faddy M, Gosden R, Ahuja K, Elder K. Egg sharing for assisted conception: a window on oocyte quality. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;22(1):88–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen MA, Lindheim SR, Sauer MV. Donor age is paramount to success in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(11):2755–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Balmaceda JP, Bernardini L, Ciuffardi I, Felix C, Ord T, Sueldo CE, et al. Oocyte donation in humans: a model to study the effect of age on embryo implantation rate. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(11):2160–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Faber BM, Mercan R, Hamacher P, Muasher SJ, Toner JP. The impact of an egg donor’s age and her prior fertility on recipient pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(2):370–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moomjy M, Cholst I, Mangieri R, Rosenwaks Z. Oocyte donation: insights into implantation. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(1):15–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang YA, Farquhar C, Sullivan EA. Donor age is a major determinant of success of oocyte donation/recipient programme. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(1):118–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abdalla HI, Baber R, Kirkland A, Leonard T, Power M, Studd JW. A report on 100 cycles of oocyte donation; factors affecting the outcome. Hum Reprod. 1990;5(8):1018–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rotsztejn DA, Ord T, Balmaceda JP, Asch RH. Variables which influence the selection of an egg donor. Hum Reprod. 1992;7(1):59–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong IL, Legro RS, Lindheim SR, Paulson RJ, Sauer MV. Efficacy of oocytes donated by older women in an oocyte donation programme. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(4):820–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stolwijk AM, Zielhuis GA, Sauer MV, Hamilton CJ, Paulson RJ. The impact of the woman’s age on the success of standard and donor in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(4):702–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shulman A, Frenkel Y, Dor J, Levran D, Shiff E, Maschiach S. The best donor. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(10):2493–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris SE, Faddy M, Levett S, Sharma V, Gosden R. Analysis of donor heterogeneity as a factor affecting the clinical outcome of oocyte donation. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2002;5(4):193–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mirkin S, Gimeno TG, Bovea C, Stadtmauer L, Gibbons WE, Oehninger S. Factors associated with an optimal pregnancy outcome in an oocyte donation program. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(10):400–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Barton SE, Missmer SA, Ashby RK, Ginsburg ES. Multivariate analysis of the association between oocyte donor characteristics, including basal follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and age, and IVF cycle outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1292–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Humm KC, Dodge LE, Wu LH, Penzias AS, Malizia BA, Sakkas D, et al. In vitro fertilization in women under 35: counseling should differ by age. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(10):1449–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris KFO, Paul RC, Macaldowie A, Lee E, Chambers GM. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2014. Sydney: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, the University of New South Wales; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wang YA MA, Hayward I, Chambers GM, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2009. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011;Assisted reproduction technology series no. 15.

  24. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):656–663 e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nazemian Z, Esfandiari N, Javed M, Casper RF. The effect of age on in vitro fertilization outcome: is too young possible? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(2):101–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Harris D, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2432–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Werler MM, Mitchell AA. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155(2):176–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Barri PN, Coroleu B, Clua E, Tur R, Boada M, Rodriguez I. Investigations into implantation failure in oocyte-donation recipients. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28(1):99–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reis Soares S, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A. High frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in embryos obtained from oocyte donation cycles. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):656–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Munne S, Ary J, Zouves C, Escudero T, Barnes F, Cinioglu C, et al. Wide range of chromosome abnormalities in the embryos of young egg donors. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;12(3):340–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Weghofer A, Barad DH. The “graying” of infertility services: an impending revolution nobody is ready for. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Broekmans FJ, Knauff EA, te Velde ER, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2007;18(2):58–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Soares SR, Velasco JA, Fernandez M, Bosch E, Remohi J, Pellicer A, et al. Clinical factors affecting endometrial receptiveness in oocyte donation cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(3):491–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was conducted with financial support from Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health Award 1UL1 TR001102-01) and financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kathryn C. Humm

    Present address: The George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20057, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave., KS 3, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Leigh A. Humphries, Laura E. Dodge, Erin B. Kennedy, Kathryn C. Humm & Michele R. Hacker

  2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Leigh A. Humphries, Laura E. Dodge, Kathryn C. Humm & Michele R. Hacker

  3. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Laura E. Dodge & Michele R. Hacker

  4. Boston IVF, 130 2nd Ave, Waltham, MA, 02451, USA

    Kathryn C. Humm & Denny Sakkas

Authors
  1. Leigh A. Humphries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura E. Dodge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin B. Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn C. Humm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michele R. Hacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Denny Sakkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denny Sakkas.

Ethics declarations

The institutional review board at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center approved this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Humphries, L.A., Dodge, L.E., Kennedy, E.B. et al. Is younger better? Donor age less than 25 does not predict more favorable outcomes after in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet 36, 1631–1637 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01494-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01494-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation