Micro-IVF: Often Preferable to Ovarian Stimulation with or Without IUI

Micro-IVF differs from “conventional IVF” in that when performed on younger women (<36Y) who have normal ovarian reserve (AMH=>2.0ng/ml and basal FSH= <9.0MIU/ml) it requires less effort/time/human resources to conduct, This allows for a significant reduction in cost. The beauty is that success rates with Micro-IVF do not differ significantly from that which is reported for, using “conventional IVF”. It thus provides qualifying candidates with an opportunity to receive treatment at a reduced cost, without compromising outcome.   It is important to realize that the cost of infertility treatment is simply a function of the cost of any procedure. Rather it comprises the cost of having a baby. Moreover, in addition to the financial component, there is also an emotional cost. Since the success rate with Micro- IVF is several fold greater than when fertility drugs are used ( with or without intrauterine insemination-IUI), it is my opinion that if there are any associated factors that could lower the chance of success using non-IVF alternatives, IVF should be considered preferentially. The following are examples of where Micro-, should in my opinion, be considered preferentially:

• Absent or irregular ovulation (e.g. Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and hypothalamic amenorrhea) where multiple ovulations cannot be regulated and there is a substantial risk of high order multiple pregnancies i.e. triplets or greater (-around 10-15%). Moreover, such women are highly susceptible to the development of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), a life endangering condition that is best avoided/controlled in the IVF setting.
• Male Infertility: IUI is all too often recommended by physicians in cases of moderately severe cases of male infertility. This in my opinion is ill-advised because without resorting to IVF/ICSI in such cases, the chance of success is no greater than when no treatment is provided at all. Here Micro-IVF, by limiting the number of embryos transferred, reduces this risk substantially.
• Mild to moderately sever endometriosis: Here, a toxic pelvic environment that is invariably present and through which the egg must pass to reach the Fallopian tube for fertilization, can reduce fertilization potential by several fold. This occurs regardless of the severity of the endometriosis and can only be averted through retrieving eggs before they are exposed to such pelvic toxins, fertilizing them outside the body and then transferring the embryos directly to the uterus. An additional consideration is that approximately 1/3 of women with endometriosis, regardless of its severity have an immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID) linked to activation of uterine natural killer cells (NKa). Such IID is most effectively treated in the IVF setting.
• Pelvic adhesions: Regardless of whether the adhesions were surgically removed and/or whether the Fallopian tubes are patent, non-IVF alternatives are associated with reduced pregnancy potential.
• Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)linked to NKa:  When NKa is detected, regardless of the cause, IVF provides a more controlled environment in which to successfully administer selective Immunotherapy than does the non-IVF setting.

Micro-IVF was devised to serve some women who otherwise might be regarded as candidates for fertility drugs (with or without)IUI . At a success rate of about 40% per Micro-IVF treatment and a cost of about  $9,000.00 (which includes monitoring, egg retrieval, fertilization, embryo transfer and embryo freezing but excludes medications, long term embryo banking and PGS testing, and testicular sperm extractions Micro-IVF is significantly less expensive than is conventional IVF.   Please contact me at 702-699-7437 or 800-780-7437 if you need more information.