SART stats for 2012 are now posted

Anne
Anne

February 18th, 2014, 4:58 pm #1

sart.org is their website
they list each clinic's ART report if you click on "Find a Clinic".
DE stats for fresh and frozen at the bottom of the page, gives you overall live birth rates, number of cycles attempted, and average # of embryos tx

The GOOD news is that the overall national summary shows success rates are slowly creeping upward, from 54.9 to 56.6% for fresh, with an overall DECREASE in the number of embryos transferred (down to 1.8 for 2012 vs 1.9 for 2011). So better stats with more SETs

The BAD news is there are still so many clinics doing shoddy work, and relying on heavy marketing, cheap prices and gimmicks, transferring 3 embryos instead of working on their quality.
Quote
Share

LizLA
LizLA

February 18th, 2014, 6:13 pm #2

was 85 or 87%....now its 72%.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 16th, 2011, 11:41 pm

February 18th, 2014, 6:45 pm #3

I'd take 72% any day of the week... But there are probably a lot more DE cycles being done now(or 2012) than 7 years ago so that would be my guess for lower stats. I looked up my first DE clinic to see an absymal 35%.. Makes me want to throw up that I wasted 6mos of my life there.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 1st, 2012, 6:50 pm

February 18th, 2014, 7:29 pm #4

was 85 or 87%....now its 72%.
I think the reduction in avg # transferred may have brought the rates down a little. Even a good clinic can bump up rates by transferring two rather than 1.
Quote
Like
Share

Anne
Anne

February 18th, 2014, 8:00 pm #5

was 85 or 87%....now its 72%.
At the top of the ART report you can pick which year you want to see and hit "select filter", most clinics have reports back to 2004 or so.

Looks like SDFC was @ 81% in 2006 and 2007 (fresh), when they were doing fewer than half as many cycles.

Did they get a new lab director or change methods during that time? 73% when transferring 2 embryos is still very good!
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 18th, 2014, 8:08 pm #6

I think the reduction in avg # transferred may have brought the rates down a little. Even a good clinic can bump up rates by transferring two rather than 1.
2.3 embryos in 2006 (for fresh)
2.1 embryos in 2007
2.0 embryos in 2012

They are slowly getting the embryo count down
Quote
Share

Anne
Anne

February 18th, 2014, 8:17 pm #7

I'd take 72% any day of the week... But there are probably a lot more DE cycles being done now(or 2012) than 7 years ago so that would be my guess for lower stats. I looked up my first DE clinic to see an absymal 35%.. Makes me want to throw up that I wasted 6mos of my life there.
2011 was 42% vs 35% for 2012

Looking back even their 2005 numbers were in the 40's
Quote
Share

Joined: February 25th, 2010, 8:30 pm

February 18th, 2014, 9:49 pm #8

At the top of the ART report you can pick which year you want to see and hit "select filter", most clinics have reports back to 2004 or so.

Looks like SDFC was @ 81% in 2006 and 2007 (fresh), when they were doing fewer than half as many cycles.

Did they get a new lab director or change methods during that time? 73% when transferring 2 embryos is still very good!
We were at SFDC in 2010 and 2012 and they had primarily the same staff including lab director. I will say that I have never seen any hint of SDFC cherry picking. They offered us a Success Guarantee after two fresh failures. I think the number of donor cycles are still so low that it doesn't take that much to throw off the percentages.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 12th, 2013, 1:30 pm

February 18th, 2014, 10:35 pm #9

at least for me. no change in staff and that was comforting for second cycle. I think people are choosing to do single transfers more. I don't know. It's still great. I'm a believer
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 16th, 2011, 11:41 pm

February 18th, 2014, 11:33 pm #10

2011 was 42% vs 35% for 2012

Looking back even their 2005 numbers were in the 40's
I turned a blind-eye to the stats when it was 42 but seeing the 35 really makes me physically sick. I feel so betrayed. I saw poor stimming practices for my own donor as well as medical histories that were terrible-- it seems like they are cycling donors who should never be donors and should be focusing on improving their lab instead of trying to cycle more and more patients who inevitably get disappointed. It obviously wasn't just me who failed there.
Quote
Like
Share