Colorado v. Shady Grove

[Anonymous]

We had a successful pregnancy at age 34 with Shady Grove. We're considering #2 at age 36, and wonder if it would be much better to go to Colorado. As thrilled as we were to be successful with SG, I wonder if my chances this time around would be much better with CCRM, for example. My response at SG was very slow.

I looked up the stats and live birth for SG with tubal factor is 28%; with CCRM it's 50%... but I realize there is a lot more to it than just the stats show. Does anyone have any insight into this? If our chances really are that much better at CCRM, and knowing how hard each cycle is to go through, I'd like to maximize our chances.

Sperm is normal, diagnosis is with me -- missing a tube (and possibly only ovulate on the other side).

[Anonymous]

You didn't mention cost in your message. Ccrm is much more expensive and their shared risk program is sketchy. It is pretty easy to do a phone consult w ccrm though - that might help u decide.

[Anonymous]

Was your response just slow or was it also poor? Slow response may have everything to do with the protocol used and a change in protocol could yield you a much different/faster/better response without the expense and hassle of cycling in Colorado. If your response was poor, then I might suggest a change to CCRM or even to Cornell. If you are intent on cycling elsewhere, then I would advise considering Cornell in addition to CCRM. They are much closer to home, have an excellent lab, and have good results.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the messages.

Good distinction-- my response wasn't very poor, it was just very slow. Apparently I was likely oversupressed by Lupron, and I wouldn't be on that protocol again.

From what I gather, it sounds like I might not receive that better of a response from CCRM or elsewhere if the response could be "good enough" from SG? In other words, is there a threshold that I as a patient might be able to get above regardless of clinic if I switch protocols, or does it not work like that?

I definitely don't want to spend more money than necessary, and it would be WAY easier to do this in DC. (I'd be coming from overseas for either, so an expensive plane ticket would be part of the cost either way).

[Anonymous]

Did you get pg on your first ivf attempt at SG?

If so, and given that you have a relatively straightforward case, I'd just go to SG.

[Anonymous]

I would consider a consult at other local clinics prior to going to CCRM, their stats are really not that much better than SGF or DF, you may just need an adjustment of your protocol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the messages.

Good distinction-- my response wasn't very poor, it was just very slow. Apparently I was likely oversupressed by Lupron, and I wouldn't be on that protocol again.

From what I gather, it sounds like I might not receive that better of a response from CCRM or elsewhere if the response could be "good enough" from SG? In other words, is there a threshold that I as a patient might be able to get above regardless of clinic if I switch protocols, or does it not work like that?

I definitely don't want to spend more money than necessary, and it would be WAY easier to do this in DC. (I'd be coming from overseas for either, so an expensive plane ticket would be part of the cost either way).

Lupron can be suppressive and result in a slow response for many women. If you are on the wrong protocol, then your response will likely not be that different clinic to clinic. However, it did get your pregnant.

In my opinion, I would have a conversation with your SG RE and see what he/she recommends in terms of protocol for another cycle. Explain your concerns. If you aren't comfortable with the approach, then I would suggest consulting elsewhere in DC or on the East Coast. If your case is pretty straight forward (and it sounds like it is), I am not sure it's worth the expense and effort of going to CCRM.

[Anonymous]

I would definitely try SG first at least. Why travel across the country if you don't need to.

[Anonymous]

I went to CCRM after many failures at SG. One doesn't fly out to CCRM after one success and no other failures. One goes to CCRM as a last resort because the cost is unbelievably more than SG. It's almost more than twice as much if you factor in the flight for you and DH, maybe if you have to take other children along too, hotel, meals, rental of a car, time away from work, etc...If you had success at 34, your eggs have not aged that much in two yrs when you are in your thirties. You will likely have success again within two cycles.

[Anonymous]

Agree with previous poster. I also think that you should get a phone consult with CCRM if you feel unsure. I am over 40 and had little success with SG and did a phone consult after sending them a copy of my medical history. Although CCRM mentioned how fabulous their lab is, which it is, they would not have changed my protocol that was done with SG. In fact, the CCRM doctor said that he had helped to create the microdose lupron protocol I used at SG. The price difference for me (insurance with SG equal about 5000 vs at least 25000 with CCRM made me decide to try SG again.) CCRM did tell me that they are good at helping to figure out the best protocol and other unexplained diagnoses, where others had failed.

[Anonymous]

Why are CCRM's stats so much better, especially if they traditionally take a higher percentage of more difficult cases? It seems like statistically, they thus would have higher success rates for the plain-vanilla protocol women as well- or?

[Anonymous]

CCRM will take plain vanilla cases and those cases definitely contribute to their excellent stats. The issue is whether you are willing to spend $25k and deal with the hassle of cycling out of town if you are a plain vanilla case. I have to say that I only considered going to Cornell, which is logistically much easier than CCRM, after multiple failed cycles. There was no way I was going to spend 2x what I was spending locally and deal with the hassle of NYC until I felt that I had exhausted local options. And, even after I did, my cycle there was a bust.

CCRM is known for their lab and also for protocol selection. Many people who don't produce mature eggs or blasts elsewhere are able to do so at CCRM.

[Anonymous]

I'm an overseas patient that had my first round of IVF at Dominion Fertility because we lived in VA at the time. Now I live in Germany and I'm planning to do a natural cycle transfer of my remaining 2 or 3 embryos. I'm really worried about timing and the added stress of the travel could have on my cycle.

[Anonymous]

i am the poster who stuck with sg after the ccrm phone consult due to expenses. I ended up getting pregnant with shady grove after 9 ivfs. I think ccrm would have put me on the correct protocol much sooner. I also think that the CCRM lab must be better in some way as the statistcs for over 40 are double those of SG. CCRM claims the difference is their lab. Not sure what else makes sense except for being able to diagnose uncommon issuess. SG really doesnt assess each person - they base everthing on statistics.

[Anonymous]

I have been a patient at CCRM, Shady Grove and CFA. CCRM is amazing and the level of professionalism and attention to detail in terms of lab quality and fine-tuning the protocol was significantly above the other two. We were not successful (due to age related genetic factors) but had a much, much better response in terms of egg and embryo production at CCRM---so at least I felt that we had done everything medically possible.