Individualized patient care and personalized treatment plans are essential to successful fertility treatments. This approach, in combination with our emphasis on single embryo transfer, leads to extraordinary success rates that are significantly higher than the national average.
Understanding IVF Success Rates
Our SART reports are a wonderful reference tool in understanding an infertility treatment center’s success rates. When you look at the charts, focus on the percentage of embryo transfers that result in live births. This statistic is one of the most important indicators of success for a practice. It communicates how many babies were born for each IVF cycle, as opposed to the number of babies conceived. Also, keep in mind that each cycle represents one round of treatment, not an individual patient.
To see our 2016 statistics on SART, please click here.
Why IVF Success Rates Matter
As you begin your journey to becoming a parent, you will want to do everything possible to maximize your chances of a healthy pregnancy. Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART), like In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), may help you conceive. Recent studies have shown that women are most likely to conceive if they undergo more than two cycles of IVF.
2016 Reproductive Partners' Patient's Own Eggs (Primary Outcome)
| Age of Women | < 35 | 35 - 37 | 38 - 40 | 41 -42 | > 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Transfers | 58 | 33 | 25 | 10 | 2 |
| Live Birth Per First Transfer | 65.5% | 57.6% | 44.0% | 4/10 | 1/2 |
| Clinical Pregnancies | 81.0% | 69.7% | 68.0% | 5/10 | 1/2 |
| Implantation Rate | 73.3% | 69.7% | 53.8% | 4/10 | 1/2 |
| Mean Number of Embryos Transferred | 1.0 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 |
| eSET (elective Single Embryo Transfer) | 89.7% | 100% | 96.0% | 8/10 | 2/2 |
| Term | 97.4% | 18/19 | 9/11 | 4/4 | 1/1 |
| Pre-term | 2.6% | 1/19 | 2/11 | 0/4 | 0/1 |
| Very Pre-term | 0% | 0/19 | 0/11 | 0/4 | 0/1 |
| Age of Women | < 35 | 35 - 37 | 38 - 40 | 41 -42 | > 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Transfers | 58 | 33 | 25 | 10 | 2 |
| Live Birth Per First Transfer | 65.5% | 57.6% | 44.0% | 4/10 | 1/2 |
| Clinical Pregnancies | 81.0% | 69.7% | 68.0% | 5/10 | 1/2 |
| Implantation Rate | 73.3% | 69.7% | 53.8% | 4/10 | 1/2 |
| Mean Number of Embryos Transferred | 1.0 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 |
| eSET (elective Single Embryo Transfer) | 89.7% | 100% | 96.0% | 8/10 | 2/2 |
| Term | 97.4% | 18/19 | 9/11 | 4/4 | 1/1 |
| Pre-term | 2.6% | 1/19 | 2/11 | 0/4 | 0/1 |
| Very Pre-term | 0% | 0/19 | 0/11 | 0/4 | 0/1 |
2016 National Average Patient's Own Eggs (Primary Outcome)
| Age of Women | < 35 | 35 - 37 | 38 - 40 | 41 -42 | > 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Transfers | 36166 | 17045 | 13287 | 5357 | 3066 |
| Live Birth Per First Transfer | 49.4% | 43.2% | 35.2% | 24.2% | 9.9% |
| Clinical Pregnancies | 57.2% | 52.4% | 46.3% | 34.2% | 17.5% |
| Implantation Rate | 45.6% | 38.0% | 28.2% | 16.4% | 6.5% |
| Mean Number of Embryos Transferred | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 |
| eSET (elective Single Embryo Transfer) | 50.1% | 38.3% | 26.4% | 17.2% | 10.7% |
| Term | 81.0% | 80.7% | 81.3% | 83.6% | 84.0% |
| Pre-term | 15.5% | 16.1% | 15.6% | 13.8% | 13.4% |
| Very Pre-term | 3.5% | 3.2% | 3.1% | 2.6% | 2.6% |
| Age of Women | < 35 | 35 - 37 | 38 - 40 | 41 -42 | > 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Transfers | 36166 | 17045 | 13287 | 5357 | 3066 |
| Live Birth Per First Transfer | 49.4% | 43.2% | 35.2% | 24.2% | 9.9% |
| Clinical Pregnancies | 57.2% | 52.4% | 46.3% | 34.2% | 17.5% |
| Implantation Rate | 45.6% | 38.0% | 28.2% | 16.4% | 6.5% |
| Mean Number of Embryos Transferred | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 |
| eSET (elective Single Embryo Transfer) | 50.1% | 38.3% | 26.4% | 17.2% | 10.7% |
| Term | 81.0% | 80.7% | 81.3% | 83.6% | 84.0% |
| Pre-term | 15.5% | 16.1% | 15.6% | 13.8% | 13.4% |
| Very Pre-term | 3.5% | 3.2% | 3.1% | 2.6% | 2.6% |
Disclaimer: It is important to note that patient characteristics vary among programs; therefore, success should not be used to compare treatment centers.
Source: 2016 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) Report