Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised
Purpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls. Methods: We performed a retrospective...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Mary Ann Liebert
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Women's Health Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/WHR.2021.0107 |
| _version_ | 1797345801648734208 |
|---|---|
| author | Emma Trawick Elnur Babayev Nivedita Potapragada Jennifer Elvikis Kristin Smith Kara N. Goldman |
| author_facet | Emma Trawick Elnur Babayev Nivedita Potapragada Jennifer Elvikis Kristin Smith Kara N. Goldman |
| author_sort | Emma Trawick |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls.
Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a university fertility center examining all patients who underwent medically indicated FP cycles during the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) COVID-19 Task Force-recommended suspension of fertility treatment (March 17?May 11, 2020) and patients from the same time period in 2019. FP care was modified for safety during the first wave of COVID-19 with fewer monitoring visits and infection control measures. FP cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared across years.
Results: The volume of cycles was nearly 30% higher in 2020 versus 2019 (27 vs. 19). Diagnoses, age, and anti-Mullerian hormone were similar between cohorts. More patients elected to pursue embryo cryopreservation over oocyte cryopreservation in 2020 versus 2019 (45.8% vs. 5.2%, p?<?0.005). Patients managed during COVID-19 had fewer monitoring visits (5???1 vs. 6???1, p?=?0.02), and 37.5% of cycles utilized a blind trigger injection. There was no difference in total days of ovarian stimulation (11???1 vs. 11???2, p?>?0.05), but 2020 cycles utilized more gonadotropin (4770???1480 vs. 3846???1438, p?=?0.04). There was no difference in total oocytes retrieved (19???14 vs. 22???12, p?>?0.05) or mature oocytes vitrified (15???12 vs. 17???9, p?>?0.05) per cycle.
Conclusions: FP continued during COVID-19, and more cycles were completed in 2020 versus 2019. Despite minimized monitoring, outcomes were optimal and equivalent to historical controls, suggesting FP care can be adapted without compromising outcomes. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T11:22:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a71a6c12c1894baf809a6e8cd8e59388 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2688-4844 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T11:22:44Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Mary Ann Liebert |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Women's Health Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-a71a6c12c1894baf809a6e8cd8e593882024-01-26T05:55:53ZengMary Ann LiebertWomen's Health Reports2688-48442022-01-0131313710.1089/WHR.2021.0107Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But UncompromisedEmma TrawickElnur BabayevNivedita PotapragadaJennifer ElvikisKristin SmithKara N. GoldmanPurpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a university fertility center examining all patients who underwent medically indicated FP cycles during the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) COVID-19 Task Force-recommended suspension of fertility treatment (March 17?May 11, 2020) and patients from the same time period in 2019. FP care was modified for safety during the first wave of COVID-19 with fewer monitoring visits and infection control measures. FP cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared across years. Results: The volume of cycles was nearly 30% higher in 2020 versus 2019 (27 vs. 19). Diagnoses, age, and anti-Mullerian hormone were similar between cohorts. More patients elected to pursue embryo cryopreservation over oocyte cryopreservation in 2020 versus 2019 (45.8% vs. 5.2%, p?<?0.005). Patients managed during COVID-19 had fewer monitoring visits (5???1 vs. 6???1, p?=?0.02), and 37.5% of cycles utilized a blind trigger injection. There was no difference in total days of ovarian stimulation (11???1 vs. 11???2, p?>?0.05), but 2020 cycles utilized more gonadotropin (4770???1480 vs. 3846???1438, p?=?0.04). There was no difference in total oocytes retrieved (19???14 vs. 22???12, p?>?0.05) or mature oocytes vitrified (15???12 vs. 17???9, p?>?0.05) per cycle. Conclusions: FP continued during COVID-19, and more cycles were completed in 2020 versus 2019. Despite minimized monitoring, outcomes were optimal and equivalent to historical controls, suggesting FP care can be adapted without compromising outcomes.https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/WHR.2021.0107cancercontrolled ovarian hyperstimulationCOVID-19fertility preservationreproductive health |
| spellingShingle | Emma Trawick Elnur Babayev Nivedita Potapragada Jennifer Elvikis Kristin Smith Kara N. Goldman Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised Women's Health Reports cancer controlled ovarian hyperstimulation COVID-19 fertility preservation reproductive health |
| title | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
| title_full | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
| title_fullStr | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
| title_full_unstemmed | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
| title_short | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
| title_sort | fertility preservation during the covid 19 pandemic modified but uncompromised |
| topic | cancer controlled ovarian hyperstimulation COVID-19 fertility preservation reproductive health |
| url | https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/WHR.2021.0107 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT emmatrawick fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT elnurbabayev fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT niveditapotapragada fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT jenniferelvikis fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT kristinsmith fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT karangoldman fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised |