- Age and Fertility
- CDC Report on Fertility Clinic IVF Success Rates
- Chromosomal Abnormalities in Eggs
- Donor Eggs
- Egg Banking
- Egg Donation
- Egg Donation Cost
- Egg Freezing
- Egg quality
- Embryo freezing
- Embryo implantation
- Fertility Preservation
- Frozen embryo transfer
- IVF Clinic Success Rates
- IVF Cost
- IVF Poor Responders
- IVF success rates
- Low ovarian reserve
- Micro IVF
- Mild IVF
- Mini IVF
- Minimal Stimulation IVF
- Multiple Pregnancy
- Number of IVF Embryos to Transfer
- Oocyte Cryopreservation
- Ovarian Reserve
- Ovarian Reserve Tests
- Preimplantation Genetic Screening
- Prelude Fertility
- Single Embryo Transfer
Fertility, IVF and Egg Donation
The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have both recently released their 2016 IVF success rate reports and published them online. These reports, which are released annually, allow anyone to investigate either IVF or egg donation success rates using fresh or frozen embryos at almost any clinic in the United States.
Federal law requires that all US in vitro fertilization centers submit their data annually so that it can be published for review by people who are considering in vitro fertilization treatments. Almost all clinics report their data to the government although a small percentage refuse to report it. When the federal government passed a law requiring annual submission of the data they probably assumed that doctors would comply and they did not make a specific punishment for not following the law. The fertility clinics that do not report probably do not want the public to see their success rate data. That is not a good signal about their success rates. I suggest staying away from any fertility clinic that does not report their data to the government.
The Society for assisted reproductive technology (SART) is an organization that the majority of fertility programs are members of. However, membership is voluntary and not all clinics are SART members. Therefore, is not required by law to report IVF data to SART but it is required to report to CDC.
The SART and CDC reports are useful tools for potential consumers of in vitro fertilization, egg donation and surrogacy services because they allow comparison of outcomes at different programs. The reports can be utilized to investigate fertility clinics in terms of their success rates, multiple pregnancy rates, treatment volumes within different age groups and within different treatment options such as using own eggs, using fresh donor eggs or using frozen donor eggs.
The SART site allows you to pull up individual programs results and you can apply various filters to the data if desired. These filters can be useful. For example, you can put a filter on the data to see only those cycles that used PGD or PGS preimplantation genetic screening, etc..
Link to SART site
The CDC site allows you to download a spreadsheet with every program’s data. This could be a somewhat overwhelming method to use – depending on how much familiarity one has with spreadsheets. Also, unfortunately the column headings in the spreadsheet are not intuitive so you need to use the “Clinic Table Dictionary” to find out what the column headings in the sheet mean. Otherwise, most of them will not make sense.
Link to CDC site
However, the spreadsheet format is powerful in that it allows a convenient way of sorting the data to list clinics in order. For example, you could choose to sort on “live birth rate per embryo transfer”, or “live birth rate per cycle”, etc.. With 463 clinics’ data in one spreadsheet it is big – but it could be cut down to the local clinics that someone might want to compare, for example.
Consumers of in vitro fertilization, egg donation, and surrogacy services should utilize these reports before choosing a clinic so they know how successful that program is as compared to other options. People that live in larger cities will usually have several fertility clinics nearby as an option to go to.
Obviously, some people might only have one fertility clinic within a hundred miles of their home. In such a case it may not be as important to compare success rates. However, some couples will travel to another state to have the IVF or egg donation services performed. We have many couples every year that travel from distant states and even from other countries to have their fertility treatments with us.
We are proud that our success rates for 2016 are well above national averages. Our success rates have been higher than average every year for the past 20 years in a row. Superior quality control throughout the entire program is the main factor allowing some clinics to have success rates substantially above average. On the other hand, poor quality control will drag success rates down. Common quality control issues involve problems with ovarian stimulation regimens, the IVF procedures (egg retrieval and embryo transfer) and the laboratory embryo culture systems.
The CDC spreadsheet does not show national averages and so that data cannot readily be compared to this CDC report national averages. Later in the year, the CDC puts out another report for the same year of data which is more comprehensive and includes charts that drill down into certain aspects of the data and also includes national averages. However, that part of the report has not yet been released by the CDC. Below are some charts utilizing the SART data on national averages and our program’s SART data showing comparisons.
There is also a page on our website that discusses how to utilize and understand the SART and CDC report data.
The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) has released the 2014 IVF success rate report in 2016. The SART in vitro fertilization outcome reports have been coming out annually for over 15 years. We are proud of our consistently high success rates. We encourage people to examine both our IVF success rates and our egg donation success rates and compare them to the national averages as well as to those of other clinics they might consider.
This year’s report represents a significant change in the way the data is reported as compared to the past. SART is trying to make the report more representative of IVF outcomes as they relate to the current styles of practice in IVF centers in the US.
In the past the SART report showed the IVF outcome data on a per started cycle, per egg retrieval, and per embryo transfer basis. However, this has basically been done away with in the 2014 report. The new SART report organizes IVF outcome metrics differently.
I will review some of the main highlights of the new report using screen shots from our own clinic’s 2014 SART report that can be found online at:
The first section in the outcome tables shows what start calls the Preliminary Cumulative Outcome per Intended Egg Retrieval. The intention is to show the cumulative chance for having a baby from both the primary embryo transfer procedure and any also any subsequent embryo transfers using frozen eggs or embryos that were not transferred initially.
I think it is unfortunate that SART put this table at the top of the report. It makes it seem that this is the most important outcome metric. However, there are problems with this metric including the fact that any embryo transfers with subsequent live births that do not fall within that calendar year will not be included in the cumulative outcome.
SART is extremely focused on singleton pregnancy outcomes. Many couples with infertility are much less focused on avoiding twins. The SART report highlights the singleton line in green. I have highlighted the live birth line in red. This line shows the cumulative live birth rate per intended egg retrieval. In my opinion the live birth rate is also important for couples struggling with infertility.
The next table is referred to by SART as the Preliminary Primary Outcome per Intended Retrieval. The preliminary primary outcome is the outcome of the first embryo transfer following the egg retrieval.
- Therefore, if there is a fresh embryo transfer that is done several days after the egg retrieval that outcome would be the preliminary primary outcome.
- However, if all of the embryos from that egg retrieval were frozen and none were transferred fresh – then the first frozen embryo transfer cycle would give the preliminary primary outcome.
- If all embryos were frozen from the fresh egg retrieval and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) was performed and all PGS results were abnormal resulting in no frozen embryo transfer – then the outcome is a failed cycle at that point.
This change in outcome metrics was put into place by SART because in recent years some clinics have moved more to performing frozen embryo transfers and are doing more “freeze all” cycles. In a freeze all cycle, all embryos are frozen several days after the egg retrieval and then thawed and transferred in a subsequent cycle. I think that SART should have put this table at the top of the page.
Again, I have highlighted the live birth row which I believe is important in red in contrast to what SART is highlighting in green.
The next table is for what SART refers to as Preliminary Subsequent Outcomes (frozen cycles). SART defines this as cycles using any frozen thawed eggs or embryos after there has already been a primary outcome. So for the most part this table represents the frozen embryo transfer success rates for the clinic. However, it excludes frozen embryo transfers that would have been the primary embryo transfer (from freeze all cycles).
The next table SART calls the Preliminary Live Birth per Patient. This table is reporting outcomes only for those patients who are new to that specific clinic and starting their first cycle for egg retrieval during that year. I have no idea why SART thinks that this is an important metric and deserving of its own table.
The last 4 tables on the page of the new SART report are for donor eggs and donor embryos. There is a table for live birth outcomes using fresh donor eggs, another table for frozen donor eggs, then frozen thawed embryos from donor eggs, and finally a table for transfers using donated embryos. These tables are easier to understand because they do not follow the “preliminary” and “subsequent” outcome methodology that SART now uses for the cycles performed using a woman’s own eggs.
There are some interesting and potentially useful features built into the new report. For example, the report now allows the viewer to apply filters to the data set. For example, you can filter frozen embryo transfer cycles to see only those results that had preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) performed on the embryos. Other filters can be applied as well.
SART is an organization of medical and other professionals. SART members are from academic medical centers and also from private practice fertility clinics. SART members could be fertility doctors, nurses, embryologists, lab directors, mental health professionals, attorneys that specialize in reproductive law, and others.
SART members have different agendas depending on the details of their own organizations and business models. Therefore, SART will be pulled in different directions by members with their own agendas. Such a varied organization will never be able to please all members. The major changes in the 2014 SART report seems to have been done in an effort to satisfy some factions within the organization. However, that has led to some problems with the report.
I have been working as a fertility doctor for over 20 years and during that time have used databases and spreadsheets on a daily basis. Understandably, I am very familiar with IVF outcome measures. However, this report was confusing for me until I studied it carefully. It took some time to figure it out. Therefore, I think that this report will be very difficult (or impossible) for the average infertility patient to understand well.
If the 2014 SART report satisfies some SART members regarding their gripes about past year’s reports then maybe it serves the SART organization’s agenda. Overall, I think it is a work in progress.
The 2013 SART report was released in early March 2015 by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. It reports clinic-specific pregnancy outcome results from in vitro fertilization cycles done by SART member clinics in 2013. The SART report is a useful resource for couples considering in vitro fertilization treatment using their own eggs or donor eggs.
Most IVF clinics in the US are SART members and have their data included in this report. A small percentage of clinics choose not to be SART members so their IVF outcome data will not be in it. However, federal law mandates that all IVF clinics in the US report their data annually to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a federal government agency. The CDC IVF report for a given year is usually released several months after the SART report.
The SART report shows both individual clinic results and national averages for IVF live birth success rates by age of the female partner. It also shows live birth success rates for treatments using donor eggs. Pregnancy and live birth success rates are shown separately for cycles using fresh eggs and embryos and for cycles using frozen embryos.
For the first time, this year’s report also shows pregnancy outcome results for frozen (banked) donor eggs. Egg freezing and egg banking is a new and rapidly evolving technology. Success rates at some clinics using frozen donor eggs are now approaching the success rates for using fresh donor eggs. Not quite as good yet, but getting closer over time.
The report also shows various other statistics for the clinics including a breakdown of diagnosis categories for the patients having IVF and the average number of embryos transferred in the various groups and percentage of singleton, twin and triplet or higher pregnancies. Learn more about the SART and CDC IVF success reports on our website.
Couples needing fertility services can utilize the SART report to compare success rates between clinics that they might consider utilizing. Success rates vary dramatically between programs and it is important for couples to understand the success rates at any fertility clinic they consider.
- The national average for IVF live birth success per cycle for 2013 was 40%. Our clinic’s IVF results were much better than average at 58%.
- The national average for egg donation live birth success per transfer for 2013 was 56%. Our clinic’s egg donation success rates were much higher at 77%
This year SART included a new metric in the report that reports the “percentage of cycles where thaw was attempted that resulted in live birth”. In the past frozen embryo transfer cycles were only reported on a “per embryo transfer” basis. Therefore, in previous SART reports if there was an attempt to thaw and transfer a couple’s embryos but no embryo survived the thaw – the data would not show up at all in the report (it was reported on a “per transfer” basis).
In the current report it shows outcome statistics on a “per thaw cycle” basis and also on a “per embryo transfer” basis. If a clinic has technical problems with embryo freezing and thawing they could have low success rates for both metrics or could have better success rates on a per transfer basis but lower rates per thaw. This would indicate embryos were not surviving well after thawing.
The SART report is a useful and timely tool for couples needing in vitro fertilization or egg donation services. The complete 2013 SART report is available through this link to the SART website. It shows national average pregnancy outcome statistics as well as clinic-specific reports for all SART member clinics.
- More about the SART and CDC IVF success rate reports
A comparison of clinic success rates may not be meaningful because patient medical characteristics, treatment approaches and entrance criteria for ART may vary from clinic to clinic.
The 2012 SART report was recently released by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). This annual report details IVF success rates and egg donation success rates for individual clinics that are members of the SART organization. The large majority of US IVF programs are SART member clinics so their IVF success rates are therefore included in this report.
A separate report on IVF success rates, the US government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report also comes out every year and covers all US clinics (by federal law). However, the CDC report is released much later than the SART report. The CDC report is released in sections with the first part out 4-5 months after the SART report.
The SART report also shows national average statistics. This allows couples with fertility problems that are considering in vitro fertilization to investigate the live birth success rates at any IVF program that they are considering. They can compare the success rates to other programs in their home area, to other programs in the US, and to national averages.
The data in this report is broken down by age group and also by whether fresh eggs and fresh embryos were transferred to the uterus or whether frozen embryos were thawed and transferred. Cycles using donor eggs are also reported separately both for fresh embryo transfers and frozen embryo transfers.
We are proud of our IVF and egg donation success rates. Our rates have been above national averages for 16 years in a row.
- For 2012 our live birth success rate for women under age 35 was 55% per egg retrieval compared to the national average of 43%
- For egg donation our 2012 live birth success rate was 82% per transfer which compares to the national average of 57%
Additional information is included in the SART report including the percentage of pregnancies with twins and triplets, the average number of embryos transferred in the different groups, and information about the diagnosis categories of patients being treated. For example, it gives the percentage of IVF cases that had a male factor infertility diagnosis, and the percentage with diminished ovarian reserve, endometriosis, tubal factor, etc.
The SART report is a valuable asset for couples considering in vitro fertilization or egg donation. They can compare success rates between clinics in order to find the clinic that will best be able to help them build their family.
The 2012 SART report is available through this link to the SART website:
More about the SART and CDC IVF success rate reports
The CDC recently released the new IVF success rate report that shows individual IVF clinic’s IVF success rates as well as national averages. This report covers IVF treatments performed in 2011. It is available to the public on the CDC website as a PDF or as a downloadable Excel spreadsheet.
The CDC IVF success rate report shows success rates for individual IVF centers in the United States. This allows couples struggling with infertility to evaluate live birth success rates for any fertility program.
The report also includes a page showing national average success rates for all categories of patients. I suggest that before having in vitro fertilization performed anywhere, couples should look up the clinic in the CDC report and compare its success rates to national averages. They should also compare the numbers to other clinics in their area.
The CDC report also shows the number of cases done in various diagnostic categories and age groups. So, for example, if someone needs IVF with donor eggs they should look at how much experience the program has with egg donation as well as the success rates using donor eggs.
For example, some IVF programs will do a significant volume of IVF using women’s own eggs but do very few cases with donor eggs. This should be an important consideration for patients needing IVF with donor eggs.
The CDC report is organized by state and within the states are listed alphabetically by city where the clinic is located. All IVF programs are required by federal law to report their IVF outcome data to the government for reporting to the public. Some clinics choose to violate federal law and not report their data.
Unfortunately, when the government passed the law they did not make a specific punishment for clinics that violate this law. Therefore, at this time the punishment for not reporting is only to be listed as a “non-reporting clinic”. Some clinics prefer to be listed as a non-reporting clinic rather than to have the public see their IVF statistics.
This obviously suggests that these programs have something to hide. Most likely they have low IVF success rates and do not want the public to see the numbers. I recommend couples stay away from any program that is breaking federal law by not reporting its IVF statistics.
The CDC report also shows the diagnosis categories of patients that are treated with IVF. It shows the percentage of cases that had male factor problems, the percent with tubal factor, the percent with diminished ovarian reserve, with endometriosis, unexplained infertility, etc.
The success results are broken down by age group. Less than 35 is the youngest age group, the other age groups are 35 to 37, 38 to 40, 41 to 42 and 43 to 44. For donor eggs all recipient ages are lumped together. This is because there is almost no difference in outcome statistics based on the age of the recipient female when using (young) donor eggs.
Results are shown on a per cycle basis and on a per transfer basis in the 2011 CDC report. A “cycle” is defined as all cases that started stimulation medications with the intention of having IVF performed. Not all patients to start cycles make it to the egg retrieval procedure because some will be canceled for a very poor response to the ovarian stimulating drugs.
Cancellation criteria will very between fertility clinics but most clinics in the US want to see a minimum of three or four mature size follicles before proceeding to the egg retrieval procedure. With less mature follicles than that the success rates are extremely low.
In the past the CDC report showed statistics on a per egg retrieval basis as well. It has always been traditional to report outcomes on a per cycle, per egg retrieval, and per embryo transfer basis. However, for some reason the CDC dropped the per egg retrieval reporting from the 2011 results page.
I think this is unfortunate because the live birth rate per egg retrieval shows how good the clinic is at getting couples pregnant if they make it to an egg retrieval procedure. There are number of reasons aside from cycle cancellation for low response to stimulation that a patient might not have an embryo transfer procedure.
For example, they could have all embryos frozen (for various reasons), or they could have poor embryo development resulting in no viable embryos for transfer.Fortunately, the other IVF success reporting system (SART IVF success rate report) still shows the live birth rate per egg retrieval statistic.
The CDC IVF report is released in 3 parts.
- A spreadsheet with all reporting clinics success rates is released in early summer
- A PDF document with statistics for all reporting clinics is released in late summer
- The complete report with clinic success statistics and other compiled statistics based on the aggregate national data is released in late winter (early 2014 for the 2011 report)
Overall, the CDC has put out an excellent report that allows consumers of IVF services to examine success rates at clinics they are considering.
- IVF success rates vary significantly between programs
- Couples should make an informed choice about where to have IVF after studying clinic success rates in the CDC report.
Welcome to the
Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago
Richard Sherbahn, MD is a Board Certified Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility specialist.
Dr. Sherbahn founded the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago in 1997.
He will post regularly about fertility issues.
Subscribe To This Blog
RSS feed: Fertility, IVF and Egg Donation
- SART and CDC Release 2016 IVF and Egg Donation Success Rate Reports
- Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago Merges with Prelude Fertility
- Benefits of Elective Single Embryo Transfer – eSET
- Chicago low cost fertility screening tests
- SART Releases 2014 IVF Success Rate Report
- Is fresh or frozen embryo transfer better for IVF?
- IVF Genetic Testing Improves Embryo Implantation
- 2013 SART IVF Success Rate Report Released
- IVF Success Rate Report Released – 2012 SART Report
- Pros and Cons – Frozen Donor Eggs for Egg Donation
Browse by tagsAge Age and Fertility CDC clinic success rate reports Delayed childbearing donor egg bank donor egg ivf donor egg program donor egg success rates Egg quality Egg quantity Fertility Fertility clinic Fertility doctor Fertility treatment Guidelines In vitro fertilization IVF IVF number of embryos transferred Multiple pregnancy Nadya Suleman Octomom oocyte cryopreservation Ovarian reserve Regulations Report Risks SART Success Success rate
- Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago
- American Society for Reproductive Medicine
- Center for Disease Control, CDC
- Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, SART
Visit our friends
A few highly recommended friends...