Objectives: We evaluated outcomes in couples treated for infertility with natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology, NPT), a systematic medical approach for optimizing physiologic conditions for conception in vivo, from an Irish general practice.Methods: All couples receiving treatment from 2 NPT-trained family physicians between February 1998 and January 2002 were studied. The main outcome was live birth, and secondary outcomes included conceptions and multiple births. Crude proportions and adjusted life-table proportions were calculated per 100 couples.Results: A total of 1239 couples had an initial consult for NPT, of which 1072 had been trying for at least a year to conceive and initiated treatment. The average female age was 35.8 years, the mean duration of attempting to conceive was 5.6 years, 24% had a prior birth, and 33% had previously attempted treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART). All couples were taught to identify the fertile days of the menstrual cycle with the Creighton Model FertilityCare System, and most received additional medical treatment, including clomiphene (75%). In life-table analysis, the cumulative proportion of first live births for those completing up to 24 months of NPT treatment was 52.8 per 100 couples. The crude proportion was 25.5. Younger couples and couples without previous ART attempts had higher rates of live birth. Among live births, there were 4.6% twin births.

Objectives: To determine the live birth rate for patients who chose to undergo treatment with Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) after previous IVF (includes ICSI). To look at birth outcomes with RRM after IVF, particularly rates of twin and higher order pregnancies, premature birth, low birth weight, and potential cost savings achieved with RRM.Setting: Two outpatient clinics in Ireland providing advanced RRM treatment of infertility.Materials and methods: All patients presenting between January 2004 and January 2010, with a history of infertility and previous IVF treatment were included if they proceeded beyond the initial consultation and began treatment. Main outcome is live birth per couple calculated using life table analysis.Results: 403 patients met the study criteria, among which 74 had a subsequent live birth. These women had significant negative predictive characteristics for healthy live birth including: advanced reproductive age (average 37.2 years), an average of 5.8 years of infertility with 2.1 (range 1–9) previous IVF attempts, with only 5% having previously had a live birth from IVF. Despite these undesirable prognostic indicators, the overall RRM live birth rate was 32.1% (crude 18.4%). Women aged 35–38 had a live birth rate of 37.5% (crude 23.6%) and older women over 40 had a live birth rate of 27.4% (crude 16.0%). The average birth weight was 3374g (7lb 7oz) with 92% being born at 37+ weeks and no very low birth weight babies. There was only one twin pregnancy in the study population; the potential health care savings for avoidable multiple pregnancies in these patients was estimated at £205 672 (USD$284 915).Conclusions: Patients who have already tried IVF can achieve comparable live birth outcomes with RRM compared to another cycle of IVF. RRM has a low risk of twin or multiple births, and very good neonatal outcomes with a potential cost savings to the health care system.

No abstract

Objective: Explore potential relationships between preovulatory, periovulatory, and luteal-phase characteristics in normally cycling women.Design: Observational study.Setting: Eight European natural family planning clinics.Patient(s): Ninety-nine women contributing 266 menstrual cycles.Intervention(s): The participants collected first morning urine samples that were analyzed for estrone-3 glucuronide (E1G), pregnanediol-3- alpha-glucuronide (PDG), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH). The participants underwent serial ovarian ultrasound examinations.Main Outcome Measure(s): Four outcome measures were analyzed: short luteal phase, low mid-luteal phase PDG level (mPDG), normal then low luteal PDG level, low then normal luteal PDG level.Results: A long preovulatory phase was a predictor of short luteal phase, with or without adjustment for other variables. A high periovulatory PDG level was a predictor for short luteal phase as well as normal then low luteal PDG level. A low periovulatory PDG level predicted low mPDG and low then normal luteal PDG level, with or without adjustment for other variables. A small maximum follicle predicted normal then low luteal PDG level, with or without adjustment for other variables. The relationship between small maximum follicle size and short luteal phase or small maximum follicle size and low mPDG was no longer present when the regression was adjusted for certain characteristics. A younger age at menarche and a high body mass index were both predictors of low mPDG.Conclusion: Luteal phase abnormalities exist over a spectrum where some ovulation disorders may exist as deviations from the normal ovulatory process.This study confirms the negative impact of a small follicle size on the quality of the luteal phase. The occurrence of normal then low luteal PDG level is confirmed as a potential sign of luteal phase abnormality.

No abstract