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.
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.