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.

8 Comments

Ahlana Sullivan

Dr. Sher I’ve conceived and delivered 4 children via cesarean, then had a tubal ligation at age 27. I am now 31 and want another child without having to go through the reversal procedure. Is Micro IVF for me??

reply
Dr. Geoffrey Sher

Barring any surprises regarding your ovarian reserve, Micro-IVF is definitely the way to go in my opinion.

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.

I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
• The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
• Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
• IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
• Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
• The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
• Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas
• Should IVF Treatment Cycles be provided uninterrupted or be Conducted in 7-12 Pre-scheduled “Batches” per Year
• A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
• How Many Embryos should be transferred: A Critical Decision in IVF.

Please call or email Julie Dahan, my patient concierge. She will guide you on how to set up an in-person or Skype consultation with me. You can reach Julie at on her cell phone or via email at any time:
Julie Dahan
• Email: Julied@sherivf.com
• Phone: 702-533-2691
 800-780-7437

Geoff Sher

I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.

reply
Sarah Chapelle

Hi Dr. Sher,
So am I understanding this correctly? Micro-IVF is IVF done without any stimulation drugs (i.e. just using your own natural cycle?). Can this be done on women older than 36 if the AMH=>2.0ng/ml and basal FSH= <9.0MIU/ml?
Thank you.

reply
Dr. Geoffrey Sher

You are not correct Sarah! Micro-IVF is the same as regular IVF, just less drugs, less monitoring ne3edeed and fewer technical interventions required/. You are referring to natural cycle IVF which is a poor idea because success rates are low (around 10% per ER).

Please visit my new Blog on this very site, http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com, find the “search bar” and type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.

• Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
• Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Protocol.(A/ACP) With the“Conventional” Antagonist Aproach
• IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
• The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
• Micro-IVF: Often Preferable to Ovarian Stimulation with or Without IUI!

I invite you to call 702-699-7437 or 800-780-7437 or go online on this site and set up a one hour Skype consultation with me to discuss your case in detail.

I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.

Geoff Sher

reply

Ask a question or post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *