Likelihood of natural conception following treatment by IVF

  • D. J. Cahill
  • J. Meadowcroft
  • V. A. Akande
  • E. Corrigan
Assisted Reproduction

Abstract

Purpose: To predict the ongoing likelihood of natural conception, when a couple has ceased to try to conceive by assisted conception.

Methods: A postal questionnaire survey obtained information on further attempts to conceive and have a baby, either without treatment or by treatment elsewhere.

Results: From a response rate of 44%, there were 116 couples who fulfilled the study criteria. The data presented are based on this group. The overall likelihood of conception was 18%. Cumulative results were analysed up to 3 years following treatment. Univariate analysis showed that likelihood of conception was affected by infertility diagnosis (p = 0.024), woman's age (> 38 years; p < 0.005) (negatively) and duration of infertility (< 3 years; p < 0.005) (positively), while primary infertility did not. Effects of diagnosis and infertility duration were confirmed by multivariable analysis, controlling for age and primary infertility. These latter variables had no independent effect.

Conclusion: The likelihood of natural conception following IVF treatment was determined by duration of infertility and diagnosis; tubal disease in particular was associated with a very poor likelihood of natural conception.

Keywords

Assisted conception diagnostic classification failure to conceive fertility likelihood of natural conception 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Evers JL, de Haas HW, Land JA, Dumoulin JC, Dunselman GA: Treatment-independent pregnancy rate in patients with severe reproductive disorders. Hum Reprod 1998;13(5):1206–1209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alam V, Solis F, Zegers-Hochschild F, Balmaceda JP: Spontaneous pregnancy after ART cycles: Follow up of 927 cycles. In Abstracts of the 14th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Goteborg, 1998; p. 70Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kupka MS, Dorn C, Richter O, van der Ven HH, Krebs D: Prognostic factors for treatment-independent pregnancies in assisted reproduction. In Abstracts of the 15th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Tours, France, 1999; pp. 316–317Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roh SI, Awadalla SG, Friedman CI, Park JM, Chin N, Dodds WG et al.: In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: Treatment-dependent versus -independent pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1987;48(6):982–986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shimizu Y, Kodama H, Fukuda J, Murata M, Kumagai J, Tanaka T: Spontaneous conception after the birth of infants conceived through in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 1999;71(1):35–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hull MG, Glazener CM, Kelly NJ, Conway DI, Foster PA, Hinton RA et al.: Population study of causes, treatment and outcome of infertility. BMJ 1985;291:1693–1697PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collins JA, Burrows EA, Willan AR: The prognosis for live birth among untreated infertile couples. Fertil Steril 1995;64(1):22–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snick HKA, Snick TS, Evers JLH, Collins JA: The spontaneous pregnancy prognosis in untreated subfertile couples: The Walcheren primary care study. Hum Reprod 1997;12(7):1582–1588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vardon D, Burban C, Collomb J, Stolla V, Erny R: Spontaneous pregnancies in couples after failed or successful in vitro fertilization. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1995;24(8):811–815Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hull MG, Eddowes HA, Fahy U, Abuzeid MI, Mills MS, Cahill DJ et al.: Expectations of assisted conception for infertility. BMJ 1992;304(6840):1465–1469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olivennes F, Kerbrat V, Rufat P, Blanchet V, Fanchin R, Frydman R: Follow-up of a cohort of 422 children aged 6 to 13 years conceived by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1997;67(2):284–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gleicher N, VanderLaan B, Pratt D, Karande V: Background pregnancy rates in an infertile population. Hum Reprod 1996;11(5):1011–1012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hull MG, Fleming CF, Hughes AO, McDermott A: The age-related decline in female fecundity: A quantitative controlled study of implanting capacity and survival of individual embryos after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1996;65(4):783–790PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ziebe S, Loft A, Petersen JH, Andersen AG, Lindenberg S, Petersen K et al.: Embryo quality and developmental potential is compromised by age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80(2):169–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akande VA, Fleming CF, Hunt LP, Keay SD, Jenkins JM: Biological versus chronological ageing of oocytes, distinguishable by raised FSH levels in relation to the success of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2002;17(8):2003–2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glazener CMA, Ford WCL. Predicting conception. Hum Fertil 2002;5(suppl 1):S3–S8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. Cahill
    • 1
  • J. Meadowcroft
    • 2
  • V. A. Akande
    • 1
  • E. Corrigan
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Bristol Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinical Sciences at South Bristol, St. Michael's HospitalBristolUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.University of Bristol Centre for Reproductive MedicineBristolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations