@MIR--miniIVF

@MIR--miniIVF

Bea
Bea

April 23rd, 2012, 11:21 pm #1

Hi MIR,
I'm sure you've posted this elsewhere, but just wondering if you came across any other clinics in addition to LifeIVF on the West coast (CA, WA, OR) that had good packages for miniIVF that you would have considered?

Also, did LifeIVF give you any statistics for success rates w/miniIVF at their center? Thanks!
Quote
Share

Joined: December 20th, 2010, 7:38 pm

April 24th, 2012, 6:29 am #2

on the west coast, and as far as I know, up till today, Life is the only game in town.

There are two clinics in NorCal (Laurel IVF and Bay IVF) that claim to be practicing mini-IVF but none of them have vitrification, and their practice when probed further is simply a watered-down version of the conventional. Neither has any OE live birth for women above 42 (when I checked). So I don't consider them real mini-IVF practices.

Life was started officially in May 2010, so I still cannot find their reported birth rate on SART. So far I was only able to obtain pregnancy rate for 2011 (since many pregnancies cannot be concluded until well into 2012). They also calculated pregnancy rate a bit differently from conventional, they count pregnancy per transfer instead of per cycle since many are doing banking. For my age group (41-42), the pregnancy rate per transfer is about 40% (of course many may end up in miscarriage).

I have seen multiple ongoing OE pregnancies at the clinic for women 44-47.5, and I myself only consider clinics that have gotten women above 45 pregnant with their own eggs.
Quote
Like
Share

BabyDance
BabyDance

April 24th, 2012, 12:40 pm #3

There is simply no way this is true, 40 percent. It just isn't. If it were, there'd be a lot of women flying from NY flying across the country. Why go to New Hope, who's stats are abysmal - I haven't looked lately (under 10 percent for 41-42 - I realize they are measuring it differently - but SART does list per transfer as well), when you can fly across the country and have a 40 percent chance. If I stand corrected in the next year, get me a plane ticket.
Quote
Share

Kim
Kim

April 24th, 2012, 1:12 pm #4

MIR is saying pregnancy rates not THB/live birth rates. Sure that THB is half or less that rate - so approx. 15-20%. I believe it.
Quote
Share

BabyDance
BabyDance

April 24th, 2012, 1:18 pm #5

Sorry, I just don't believe it. Mini is mainly used on people like us, and the stats would naturally be lower. It's about 20 percent for over 40 women that make a lot of eggs. It's just doesn't make any sense for so fewer eggs to be the same stats as conventional. If it's 10 percent, that would be a decent stat for mini IVF.
Quote
Share

Kim
Kim

April 24th, 2012, 2:39 pm #6

the quality better for the embies from mini-IVF? I think it would be matching stats.
Quote
Share

BabyDance
BabyDance

April 24th, 2012, 3:11 pm #7

mainstream at this point, IMHO. It is being used more, but not in anyway a breakthrough. I have done many minis - EZ and low stim. My quality has been fair to poor everytime. Never good. Not one grade A, and that's going back to being 40. I'm not a naysayer. I think mini is the way to go for anyone who doesn't make a lot of eggs, and most of us on hear. It's just not a panacea, whatsoever. There has yet to be success on this board since I've been here with mini, EZ or low stim (not THAT long, a year and half). There probably will be, MIR, whose committed said she's committed to cycling for over 2 years with mini (at least 24 cycles??). The proof is in the pudding.

MIR has mentioned some successes she's seen, and we know about Alexis Stewart. I personally know of one person at Zhang who was successful at 41 after 3 cycles. I believe her problem was MF, her husband was in his 60's as she's alluded to this. It's just not a panacea. That's all. The success rate, meaning live birth at 41-42 is probably, under 10 percent, and most likely 5 percent. And lower as you get older. You've got to commit to 20 cycles plus, IMHO, if you are high FSH, DOR and over 40.

I personally have spent about 55,000 and just doing my last cycle (and my 8th), 6 of them that have been EZ and low stim. I can't do anymore. Would a get a child if I did another 2 years of mini? 5 percent chance with my stats (severe DOR, very high FSH). I've decided against it. My DP is not on board, and I'm not really either - because I don't have too much faith in 5 percent. If anyone else does, more power to them. Better FSH and not so DOR, maybe it's 10 percent, IMHO. Again, just my opinion.

Zhang is also now 7,000 or something for ONE mini cycle? Absurd, unaffordable, and not happening for 20 cycles, plus, for 5 percent chance. Dr. T is still 13 plus for 3, I believe. That would make more sense, and I think he's getting more experience with EZ. When I asked him flat out if he's ever had someone like me succeed, "rare and not often".

If you are just starting, and have high FSH and DOR, and loads of cash to commit - say at least 50, but probably 100 plus, and year of time - mini is a great choice. If not so high FSH, but DOR, also a great choice, and probably won't have to commit as much cash and time and better chance to succeed, IMHO.
Quote
Share

Kim
Kim

April 24th, 2012, 3:35 pm #8

You've been through a lot too. I do believe that FSH fluctuates from cycle to cycle, and there are cycles with good eggs - even with high FSH and DOR. You just never know what could happen on your next IVF. Also, I believe that the lining is most of our problems - not all bad eggs. I know IVF is a long shot but we still try it - you can't win the lottery if you don't play is my motto:)
Quote
Share

Mtoto2
Mtoto2

April 24th, 2012, 4:34 pm #9

Hi MIR,
I'm sure you've posted this elsewhere, but just wondering if you came across any other clinics in addition to LifeIVF on the West coast (CA, WA, OR) that had good packages for miniIVF that you would have considered?

Also, did LifeIVF give you any statistics for success rates w/miniIVF at their center? Thanks!
Rep. Partners.Med. Grp claim to be doing mini ivf for about $5,500 a cycle & my RE recommends at least 3 banking cycles. Protocol is Clomid - maybe confusing it with Natural ivf.
Quote
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2011, 4:55 am

April 24th, 2012, 10:01 pm #10

mainstream at this point, IMHO. It is being used more, but not in anyway a breakthrough. I have done many minis - EZ and low stim. My quality has been fair to poor everytime. Never good. Not one grade A, and that's going back to being 40. I'm not a naysayer. I think mini is the way to go for anyone who doesn't make a lot of eggs, and most of us on hear. It's just not a panacea, whatsoever. There has yet to be success on this board since I've been here with mini, EZ or low stim (not THAT long, a year and half). There probably will be, MIR, whose committed said she's committed to cycling for over 2 years with mini (at least 24 cycles??). The proof is in the pudding.

MIR has mentioned some successes she's seen, and we know about Alexis Stewart. I personally know of one person at Zhang who was successful at 41 after 3 cycles. I believe her problem was MF, her husband was in his 60's as she's alluded to this. It's just not a panacea. That's all. The success rate, meaning live birth at 41-42 is probably, under 10 percent, and most likely 5 percent. And lower as you get older. You've got to commit to 20 cycles plus, IMHO, if you are high FSH, DOR and over 40.

I personally have spent about 55,000 and just doing my last cycle (and my 8th), 6 of them that have been EZ and low stim. I can't do anymore. Would a get a child if I did another 2 years of mini? 5 percent chance with my stats (severe DOR, very high FSH). I've decided against it. My DP is not on board, and I'm not really either - because I don't have too much faith in 5 percent. If anyone else does, more power to them. Better FSH and not so DOR, maybe it's 10 percent, IMHO. Again, just my opinion.

Zhang is also now 7,000 or something for ONE mini cycle? Absurd, unaffordable, and not happening for 20 cycles, plus, for 5 percent chance. Dr. T is still 13 plus for 3, I believe. That would make more sense, and I think he's getting more experience with EZ. When I asked him flat out if he's ever had someone like me succeed, "rare and not often".

If you are just starting, and have high FSH and DOR, and loads of cash to commit - say at least 50, but probably 100 plus, and year of time - mini is a great choice. If not so high FSH, but DOR, also a great choice, and probably won't have to commit as much cash and time and better chance to succeed, IMHO.
Not commenting on any of this right now except to say that the way I interpreted the Life data MiR is reporting for the 40% pregnancy rate per transfer is actually consistent with what Dr. T told me is the implantation rate for blastocysts at S.IRM NY (also 40%), so if the women Life is basing that statistic on are banking and manage to get embryos that make it to blast and/or to freeze, I don't think their numbers are out of the realm of possibility. For women who don't consistently make embryos that make it to blast and/or freeze, I don't think that stat would necessarily apply, but that's why it's a mistake to lump all mini or EZ-IVF stats together. But even if we allow that banking and transferring blasts is going to give a better chance for those who can do so, those women who aren't doing so--either because they can't afford it or don't make enough decent eggs for banking to be a good option for them in the first place--aren't even going to BE there contributing to these statistics. Or in other words, the statistics are based on a self selecting population. (Which seems to me to be consistent with what you're saying here, especially as you point out that we also don't know how many banking cycles/embryos go into each of these 40% successful transfers!)
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: