Beyond the scale: navigating BMI, IVF candidacy, and retrieval settings through provider perspectives.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Amanda Tjitro, Lisa Pappas, Erica Boiman Johnstone, Megan Link, Lauren Verrilli, Meredith Humphreys, Ijeoma Iko, Joseph Letourneau
{"title":"Beyond the scale: navigating BMI, IVF candidacy, and retrieval settings through provider perspectives.","authors":"Amanda Tjitro, Lisa Pappas, Erica Boiman Johnstone, Megan Link, Lauren Verrilli, Meredith Humphreys, Ijeoma Iko, Joseph Letourneau","doi":"10.1007/s10815-025-03604-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify provider-level differences in the role of body mass index (BMI) in in vitro fertilization (IVF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility members (n = 827). Analysis implemented descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred eighty-seven responses were received from practices across the USA (22% response rate). Eighty-four percent of responders turned away at least one patient, in the past year, due to either BMI (82%) or a medical comorbidity other than obesity (68%). Eighty-six percent of respondents implement a cutoff. Implementation of cutoffs did not differ significantly by practice setting or geographic region. The most common reported BMI cutoff was ≥ 40. 95% cited anesthesia requirements as the primary reason for cutoffs. Only 11% of respondents perform hospital retrievals, where all 20 providers were academically affiliated. Those not performing retrievals cited lack of access to a mobile embryology lab (60%), patient cost (39%), and scheduling difficulties (55%) as common barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most surveyed REIs said they had excluded a patient due to BMI or a medical comorbidity in the past year, likely due to surgical and anesthetic concerns. Very few providers have access to hospital retrievals, but even outpatient retrievals for women with BMI ≥ 40 are considered safe. We agree with avoidance of a universal BMI cutoff; rather, we advocate for streamlined referral systems for otherwise excluded women, and further work in weight loss management interventions and cost effectiveness of IVF.</p>","PeriodicalId":15246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-025-03604-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To identify provider-level differences in the role of body mass index (BMI) in in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility members (n = 827). Analysis implemented descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests.

Results: One hundred eighty-seven responses were received from practices across the USA (22% response rate). Eighty-four percent of responders turned away at least one patient, in the past year, due to either BMI (82%) or a medical comorbidity other than obesity (68%). Eighty-six percent of respondents implement a cutoff. Implementation of cutoffs did not differ significantly by practice setting or geographic region. The most common reported BMI cutoff was ≥ 40. 95% cited anesthesia requirements as the primary reason for cutoffs. Only 11% of respondents perform hospital retrievals, where all 20 providers were academically affiliated. Those not performing retrievals cited lack of access to a mobile embryology lab (60%), patient cost (39%), and scheduling difficulties (55%) as common barriers.

Conclusions: Most surveyed REIs said they had excluded a patient due to BMI or a medical comorbidity in the past year, likely due to surgical and anesthetic concerns. Very few providers have access to hospital retrievals, but even outpatient retrievals for women with BMI ≥ 40 are considered safe. We agree with avoidance of a universal BMI cutoff; rather, we advocate for streamlined referral systems for otherwise excluded women, and further work in weight loss management interventions and cost effectiveness of IVF.

超越尺度:导航BMI,试管婴儿候选资格,并通过提供者的观点检索设置。
目的:探讨身体质量指数(BMI)在体外受精(IVF)中作用的提供者水平差异。方法:通过电子方式对生殖内分泌与不孕症学会会员进行横断面调查(n = 827)。分析采用描述性统计和费雪精确检验。结果:从美国各地的实践中收到了187份回复(22%的回复率)。在过去的一年中,84%的应答者拒绝了至少一名患者,原因要么是BMI(82%),要么是肥胖以外的医学合并症(68%)。百分之八十六的受访者实施了限制。在实践环境或地理区域中,截止值的实施没有显著差异。最常见的BMI临界值为≥40。95%的人认为麻醉需要是切断的主要原因。只有11%的受访者进行医院检索,其中所有20家提供者都是学术附属机构。那些没有进行检索的人认为缺乏移动胚胎学实验室(60%)、患者成本(39%)和安排困难(55%)是常见的障碍。结论:大多数接受调查的REIs表示,他们在过去一年中排除了由于BMI或医学合并症的患者,可能是由于手术和麻醉方面的考虑。很少有医疗服务提供者可以获得医院的复查,但即使是BMI≥40的女性门诊复查也被认为是安全的。我们同意避免一个普遍的BMI临界值;相反,我们主张为那些被排除在外的妇女建立精简的转诊系统,并在减肥管理干预和体外受精的成本效益方面进一步开展工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
286
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics publishes cellular, molecular, genetic, and epigenetic discoveries advancing our understanding of the biology and underlying mechanisms from gametogenesis to offspring health. Special emphasis is placed on the practice and evolution of assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) with reference to the diagnosis and management of diseases affecting fertility. Our goal is to educate our readership in the translation of basic and clinical discoveries made from human or relevant animal models to the safe and efficacious practice of human ARTs. The scientific rigor and ethical standards embraced by the JARG editorial team ensures a broad international base of expertise guiding the marriage of contemporary clinical research paradigms with basic science discovery. JARG publishes original papers, minireviews, case reports, and opinion pieces often combined into special topic issues that will educate clinicians and scientists with interests in the mechanisms of human development that bear on the treatment of infertility and emerging innovations in human ARTs. The guiding principles of male and female reproductive health impacting pre- and post-conceptional viability and developmental potential are emphasized within the purview of human reproductive health in current and future generations of our species. The journal is published in cooperation with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, an organization of more than 8,000 physicians, researchers, nurses, technicians and other professionals dedicated to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信