WOMAN who have IVF in their early 40s are twice as likely to miscarry than those who are under 35, Scots scientists have discovered.
The study by Aberdeen University showed that a woman's age affects the outcome of every single step of IVF treatment. It is the first study of its kind to break down failure rates for each stage of IVF for different age groups.
Researchers examined data from 121,744 women from across the UK who underwent their very first cycle of IVF between 2000 and 2007 using their own eggs. They found that women's chances of having a baby following IVF start to decline by their mid-30s but from 37 onwards these go very rapidly downhill.
Even after a pregnancy has been confirmed, women aged 38-39 were 43% more likely to have a miscarriage than women aged 18-34, while women aged 40-42 were almost twice as likely to lose the baby as 18 to 34-year-olds.
Professor Siladitya Bhattacharya, professor of reproductive medicine at Aberdeen University, led the research. He said: "IVF comprises a number of key steps, each of which has to be successfully achieved before the next stage can be attempted. We found that age impacted on every single hurdle that has to be overcome during the emotional rollercoaster that is IVF.
"There is no point during an IVF treatment - even in women who have done well in a preceding stage - when age ceases to matter. Age has the capacity to increase the risk of treatment failure even in women who respond to hormonal treatment, have eggs harvested and embryos replaced.
"We hope our study provides a more accurate and dynamic way of predicting a couple's chances of treatment failure as they negotiate each step of IVF."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article