Article

[Ten years of results of in-vitro fertilisation in the Netherlands 1996-2005].

Universitair Medisch Centrum St Radboud, afd. Gynaecologie, Nijmegen.
Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde 02/2008; 152(3):146-52.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To present the numbers and results of Dutch IVF treatment from 1996-2005 and to describe trends and differences between centres.
Retrospective data-collection, description and analysis.
The annual statistics from all Dutch IVF centres covering the years 1996-2005 were collected, described and analysed.
During this period 138,217 IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were started and 14,881 transfers of frozen-thawed embryos (cryo transfers) were performed. The number of ICSI treatments, in particular, increased to more than 6000 cycles during this period. These treatments resulted in 30,488 ongoing pregnancies (22.1% per cycle started; 19.1% for IVF and 23.4% for ICSI). The ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle increased from 17.6% in 1996 to 24.4% in 2005. The increase after cryo transfers was remarkable (from 9.4% to 17.6%). It is estimated that during this period, about 1 in 52 newborns in the Netherlands was an IVF or ICSI child (1996: 1 in 77, 2005: 1 in 43). There were differences between the individual centres regarding the ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle (range: 15.0-26.4%), the percentage of ICSI (range 20-58%), the percentage of cryo transfers per cycle (range: 4-22%) and the multiple pregnancy rate (range 5-27% in 2005).
In the Netherlands the pregnancy rate has increased over the last 10 years as has the number of IVF treatments. Cryo transfers have become increasingly important and the multiple pregnancy rate has decreased. Although thanks to the collaboration of all centres, the current registry produces important data and works well, there are a number of limitations e.g. the retrospective nature with no validation, which must be tackled over the coming years.

0 Followers
 · 
70 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare perinatal singleton and multiple outcomes in a large Dutch in-vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) population and within risk subgroups. Newborns were assigned to a risk category based on gestational age, birthweight, Apgar score and congenital malformation. Register-based retrospective cohort study. Netherlands Perinatal Registry data. 3041 singletons and 1788 multiple children born from IVF/ICSI in 2003-2005. Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze continuous data, χ²-analyses were used for categorical data. Multivariate logistic and linear regression analysis was performed to analyze whether the risk stratification criteria were associated with neonatal hospital admission and length of stay. Start of labor, mode of delivery, gestational age, birthweight, Apgar score, congenital malformation, neonatal hospital admission, neonatal intensive care unit admission and mortality. IVF/ICSI conceived multiples had considerably poorer outcomes than singletons in terms of cesarean section rate, preterm birth, birthweight, being small-for-gestational age, Apgar score, neonatal hospital admission, neonatal intensive care unit admission and neonatal mortality. As opposed to the results found in the total study population and the low- and moderate-risk population, high-risk multiples showed better outcomes than high-risk singletons regarding cesarean section rate, birthweight and Apgar score. All risk stratification variables were associated with being hospitalized after birth. Length of stay was associated with all risk stratification criteria except Apgar score. Perinatal outcomes in IVF/ICSI conceived multiples are considerably poorer than in singletons. This finding mainly pertains to low-risk children. High-risk multiples had significantly better perinatal outcomes than high-risk singletons. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica 01/2014; DOI:10.1111/aogs.12328 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of audits and feedback on the level of patient-centeredness in fertility care, and to obtain a more in-depth understanding of professionals' views on patient-centered care and achieving improvements. DESIGN: Mixed-method design, using semistructured in-depth interviews and patient questionnaires. SETTING: Fifteen Dutch fertility clinics. PATIENT(S): Women in infertility treatment (quantitative section) and fertility care professionals (qualitative section). INTERVENTION(S): Audit of the level of patient-centeredness of care, and feedback provided to clinics by a personalized paper-based feedback report. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Quantitative section: the patient-reported differences in the level of patient-centered fertility care between 2009 and 2011 measured by the Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire-Infertility. Qualitative section: professionals views on improving patient-centered fertility care arranged into a Hibbard framework for behavioral change. RESULT(S): Multilevel regression analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the overall levels of patient-centeredness in 2009 and 2011. Qualitative research showed that professionals' urge to change and their ability to translate feedback were suboptimal to achieve behavioral change. CONCLUSION(S): Audits and feedback alone are not enough to improve the level of patient-centeredness in fertility care. Increasing professionals' desire to change and their ability to translate feedback about their performance into an optimal quality improvement strategy appear to be the key issues.
    Fertility and sterility 01/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.024 · 4.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: STUDY QUESTION: What is the relationship between the rate of elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) and couples' exposure to different elements of a multifaceted implementation strategy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Additional elements in a multifaceted implementation strategy do not result in an increased eSET rate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A multifaceted eSET implementation strategy with four different elements is effective in increasing the eSET rate by 11%. It is unclear whether every strategy element contributes equally to the strategy's effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN AND SIZE: An observational study was performed among 222 subfertile couples included in a previously performed randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS, SETTINGSAND METHODS: Of the 222 subfertile couples included, 109 couples received the implementation strategy and 113 couples received standard IVF care. A multivariate regression analysis assessed the effectiveness of four different strategy elements on the decision about the number embryos to be transferred. Questionnaires evaluated the experiences of couples with the different elements. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the couples who received the implementation strategy, almost 50% (52/109) were exposed to all the four elements of the strategy. The remaining 57 couples who received two or three elements of the strategy could be divided into two further classes of exposure. Our analysis demonstrated that additional elements do not result in an increased eSET rate. In addition to the physician's advice, couples rated a decision aid and a counselling session as more important for their decision to transfer one or two embryos, compared with a phone call and a reimbursement offer (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: The differences in eSET rate between exposure groups failed to reach significance, probably because of the small numbers of couples in each exposure group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Adding more elements to an implementation strategy does not always result in an increased effectiveness, which is in concordance with recent literature. This in-depth evaluation of a multifaceted intervention strategy could therefore help to modify strategies, by making them more effective and less expensive. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: There are no funding sources or competing interests to be declared.
    Human Reproduction 11/2012; 28(2). DOI:10.1093/humrep/des371 · 4.59 Impact Factor