Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Time to live birth: towards a common agreement

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

Abstract

The major purpose of a couple at the first infertility appointment is to get a healthy baby as soon as possible. From diagnosis and decision on which assisted reproduction technique (ART) and controlled ovarian stimulation, to the selection of which embryo to transfer, the dedicated team of physicians and embryologists puts all efforts to shorten the time to pregnancy and live birth. Time seems thus central in assisted reproduction, and we can conveniently use it as a measure of treatment efficiency. How can we measure time to live birth? What timelines do we need to consider to evaluate efficiency? In this paper, we will discuss the importance of “Time” as a fundamental parameter for measuring ART success.

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. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):236–43. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0803072.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod. 2015;263. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev263.

  3. U. Department of Health, H. Services, C. for Disease Control, N. Center for Chronic Disease Prevention, and H. Promotion, “2019 Assisted reproductive technology fertility clinic and national summary report.” [Online]. n.d. Available: www.cdc.gov/art/reports. Accessed 18 Aug 2022.

  4. de Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocunu W, Motrenko T, Scaravelli G, Smeenk J, Vidakovic S, Goossens V. The European IVF.monitoring Consortium (EIM) for European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). ART in Europe, 2015: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoz038.

  5. Fischer C, Scott TR. Three simple metrics to define in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(1):6–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.04.056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. te Velde E, Eijkemans R, Habbema H. Variation in couple fecundity and time to pregnancy, an essential concept in human reproduction. Lancet. 2000;355(9219):1928–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02320-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sunkara SK, Zheng W, D’Hooghe T, Longobardi S, Boivin J. Time as an outcome measure in fertility-related clinical studies: long-awaited. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(8):1732–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Duffy JMN, AlAhwany H, Bhattacharya S, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Farquharson RG, Franik S, Giudice LC, Khalaf Y, Knijnenburg JML, Leeners B, Legro RS, Lensen S, Vazquez-Niebla Jc, Mavrelos D, Mol BWJ, Niederberger C, Ng EHY, Otter SD, Puscasiu L, Rautakallio-Hokkanen S, Repping S, Sarris I, Simpson JL, Strandell A, Strawbridge, Torrance HL, Vail A, van Wely M, Vercoe MA, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Youssef MA, Farquhar CM. Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative. Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(12):2725–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Devroey P, Aboulghar M, Garcia-Velasco J, Griesinger G, Humaidan P, Kolibianakis E, Ledger W, Tomás C, Fauser BCJM. Improving the patient’s experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment. Hum Reprod. 2008;24(4):764–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den468.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lambalk CB, Banga FR, Huirne JA, Toftager M, Pinborg A, Homburg R, can der Veen F, van Wely M. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(5):560–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ho VNA, Braam SC, Pham Td, Mol BW, Vuong LN. The effectiveness and safety of in vitro maturation of oocytes versus in vitro fertilization in women with a high antral follicle count. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(6):1055–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cecchino GN, Roque M, Cerrillo M, Filho RR, Chiamba FS, Hatty JH, García-Velasco JA. DuoStim cycles potentially boost reproductive outcomes in poor prognosis patients. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021;37(6):519–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1822804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boltz MW, Sanders JN, Simonsen SE, Stanford JB. Fertility treatment, use of in vitro fertilization, and time to live birth based on initial provider type. J Am Board Fam. 2017;30(2):230–8. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2017.02.160184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bosch E, Bulletti C, Copperman AB, Fanchin R, Yarali H, Petta CA, Polyzos NP, Shaapiro D, Ubaldi FM, Velasco JAG, Longobardi S, D’Hooghe T, Humaidan P, Delphi TTP Consensus Group. How time to healthy singleton delivery could affect decision-making during infertility treatment: a Delphi consensus. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(1):118–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.09.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken RJ, Harbottle S, Mocanu E, Hardarson T, Mathur R, Viville S, Vail A, Lundin K. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? Hum Reprod. 2017;32(3):485–549. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Penzias A, Bendikson K, Butts S, Coutifaris C, Falcone T, Fossum G, Gitlin S, Gracia C, Hansen K, La Barbera A, Mersereau J, Odem R, Paulson R, Pfeifer S, Pisarska M, Rebar R, Reindollar R, Rosen M, Sandlow J, Vernon M, Widra E. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sacchi L, Albani E, Cesana A, Smeraldi A, Parini V, Fabiani M, Poli M, Capalbo A, Levi-Setti PE. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy improves clinical, gestational, and neonatal outcomes in advanced maternal age patients without compromising cumulative live-birth rate. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(12):2493–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01609-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Reignier A, Lefebvre T, Loubersac S, Lammers J, Barriere P, Freour T. Time-lapse technology improves total cumulative live birth rate and shortens time to live birth as compared to conventional incubation system in couples undergoing ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:917–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02099-z/Published.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):244–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clua E, Rodríguez I, Arroyo G, Racca A, Martínez F, Polyzos NP. Blastocyst versus cleavage embryo transfer improves cumulative live birth rates, time and cost in oocyte recipients: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44(6):995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.01.001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ferrick L, Lee YSL, Gardner DK. Reducing time to pregnancy and facilitating the birth of healthy children through functional analysis of embryo physiology. Biol Reprod. 2019;101(6):1124–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioz005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Price SA, Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, Nankervis AJ, Permezel M, Proietto J. Time to pregnancy after a prepregnancy very-low-energy diet program in women with obesity: substudy of a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(6):1256–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.06.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vanegas JC, Chavarro JE, Williams PL, Ford JB, Toth TL, Hauser R, Gaskins AJ. Discrete survival model analysis of a couple’s smoking pattern and outcomes of assisted reproduction. Fertil Res Pract. 2017;3(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-017-0032-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Improvements in IVF in women of advanced age. J Endocrinol. 2016;230(1):F1–6. https://doi.org/10.1530/JOE-16-0105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murugesu S, Kasaven LS, Petrie A, Vaseekaran A, Jones BP, Bracewell-Milnes T, Barcroft JF, Grewal KJ, Getreu N, Galazis N, Sorbi F, Saso S, Ben-Nagi J. Does advanced paternal age affect outcomes following assisted reproductive technology? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2022;45(2):283–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro Médico de Assistência à Reprodução – CEMEARE, Lisbon, Portugal

    Mónica Marques, Patrícia Rodrigues, Juan Aibar, Maria José Carvalho & Carlos E. Plancha

  2. Escola de Psicologia de Ciências da Vida, Universidade Lusófona de Humanidade E Tecnologia de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Patrícia Rodrigues

  3. Inst. Histologia e Biol, Desenvolvimento, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Carlos E. Plancha

Authors
  1. Mónica Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrícia Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Aibar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria José Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos E. Plancha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MM and CEP drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed through literature search and discussion.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mónica Marques.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marques, M., Rodrigues, P., Aibar, J. et al. Time to live birth: towards a common agreement. J Assist Reprod Genet 40, 997–1001 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02790-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02790-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation