Natural Cycle IVF is better for implantation


A recent Daily Mail article claims that a new type of IVF screening can turn your fertility clock backwards.

Professor Nargund’s response puts it into perspective

This article completely supports the fact that a more natural approach to IVF is better for implantation and the health of the child.

High stimulation IVF is linked with potentially increased chromosome abnormalities in embryos and adverse conditions in the lining of womb for implantation. The evidence suggests that the birthweight of babies born from modified natural or mild IVF cycles is higher than those born with high stimulation IVF. Therefore, implantation of fresh embryos in a more natural environment gives higher success. The aim of IVF treatment must be to do less damage to embryos and the lining of womb. If we take this approach, it supports the use of natural or mild IVF cycles.

Freezing of embryos is necessary if we use high stimulation which can damage the lining of uterus for implantation. Fresh embryos are the best and why not use a more natural and mild IVF approach to create healthier embryos, healthier lining of womb and higher birth weight babies?

The aim of IVF treatment must be to do no harm to embryos, uterus and woman. It is also important to reduce cost of treatment, reduce the use of unnecessary invasive techniques and burden of treatment for women.

We must be cautious before we advocate routine screening of embryos and freezing of embryos as they are invasive techniques.

We need to take a step back and aim to create healthier embryos and to keep uterine lining as healthy as possible for implantation of fresh embryos.

IVF treatment should be made safer, less invasive, less drug-intensive and less expensive and not the other way round.

  • Share