IVF at 46 with own eggs frozen at 38

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone here is wrong and I know because I did something similar. Eggs frozen at 36 and baby born at 42.

Your odds of getting pregnant are in the 38 year old range as long as your eggs were frozen using the most recent technology and you are working with a good lab. Most miscarriages are chromosomal-related. Your chances of chromosomal issues are the same as any 38 year old - and far lower if you PGS test. My screening tests like NIPT were treated as if I was 36, but I did have some extra monitoring at the end of my pregnancy and take baby aspirin to prevent pre-eclampsia because I was over 40. As my RE said, if you have good 30-something eggs/embryos, I can get you pregnant anytime in your 40s. Your age is now irrelevant.

No one is saying she can’t get pregnant using her frozen eggs. What we are saying is that the odds are slower, which is her question. Even with vitrified eggs, only 91% survive the thaw. Fewer eggs = lower chances of a live birth. So right off the bat, OP will be behind a 38 year old using fresh eggs. The odds may still be pretty good but they are not equivalent to a 38 year old using fresh eggs.

Given the bolded I really don’t understand why people are claiming it’s exactly the same. Come on guys. It’s not. Be real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The odds are closely aligned to the age at which you generated the eggs.

Not exactly. This would have been true if OP had made embryos and then frozen them. Freezing eggs by themselves (even vitrification) makes them more fragile than fresh 38 year old eggs.

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who froze her eggs and she found out that the technology changed within those few years of when she froze them. So Shady Grove fertility was picky about who froze the eggs and the technology used. And I believe the "defrosting" of the eggs can be tough on some of them. I am not sure it is similar to a 38 year old using their own eggs per say but technically your frozen eggs are 38 years old.

[Anonymous]

I think some of the responses here are confusing frozen eggs and frozen embryos...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone here is wrong and I know because I did something similar. Eggs frozen at 36 and baby born at 42.

Your odds of getting pregnant are in the 38 year old range as long as your eggs were frozen using the most recent technology and you are working with a good lab. Most miscarriages are chromosomal-related. Your chances of chromosomal issues are the same as any 38 year old - and far lower if you PGS test. My screening tests like NIPT were treated as if I was 36, but I did have some extra monitoring at the end of my pregnancy and take baby aspirin to prevent pre-eclampsia because I was over 40. As my RE said, if you have good 30-something eggs/embryos, I can get you pregnant anytime in your 40s. Your age is now irrelevant.

No one is saying she can’t get pregnant using her frozen eggs. What we are saying is that the odds are slower, which is her question. Even with vitrified eggs, only 91% survive the thaw. Fewer eggs = lower chances of a live birth. So right off the bat, OP will be behind a 38 year old using fresh eggs. The odds may still be pretty good but they are not equivalent to a 38 year old using fresh eggs.

Given the bolded I really don’t understand why people are claiming it’s exactly the same. Come on guys. It’s not. Be real.

I’m the PP with a frozen egg baby. No one is saying it’s exactly the same, or if they are, that’s wrong. What is the case is that if the OP gets blasts from those frozen eggs, her odds are similar if not identical to those of a 38 year old (assuming a receptive uterus). And if she has 20+ eggs like I did, her odds of a baby are actually quite good. There’s a frozen egg calculator online that tells you your odds based on age when frozen and number of eggs which is very useful, OP. FWIW, my 20 eggs got me five untested blasts and baby on second FET. The technology is not perfect, but it’s come a long way, and OP has every reason to be hopeful esp if she froze a lot of eggs.

[Anonymous]

Egg freezing calculator: https://www.mdcalc.com/bwh-egg-freezing-counseling-tool-efct
A high number of mature eggs frozen using vitrification at 38 = good odds!
Best wishes!

[Anonymous]

We're deciding between donor eggs and donor embryos right now, and one factor is the cost difference and success rates between fresh and frozen donor egg cycles. The rule of thumb is that frozen donor eggs, which presumably are very high quality, have lower success rates than fresh donor egg cycles. Proven, normal frozen embryos have high success rates, and eggs are hard to compare directly to embryos because a lot depends on the sperm, but in general fresh is higher than frozen.

[Anonymous]

Having a baby at 47? Good luck OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having a baby at 47? Good luck OP!

Why isn’t anyone bringing this up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a baby at 47? Good luck OP!

Why isn’t anyone bringing this up?

Because it wasn't the question and it's none of our business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're deciding between donor eggs and donor embryos right now, and one factor is the cost difference and success rates between fresh and frozen donor egg cycles. The rule of thumb is that frozen donor eggs, which presumably are very high quality, have lower success rates than fresh donor egg cycles. Proven, normal frozen embryos have high success rates, and eggs are hard to compare directly to embryos because a lot depends on the sperm, but in general fresh is higher than frozen.

Yes but your donor pool is larger and the process is faster. As for having a kid at 47 it’s not wise. I had a second at 46 and now spend a lot of time worrying about launching my kid in case of health problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the stats comparable to those for 38 year olds using their own eggs in general?

38 is always better than 46.
Fresh is always better than frozen.
More eggs are always better than a few.

Good luck to you.

This isn't true for everyone for a lot of different reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes but your donor pool is larger and the process is faster. As for having a kid at 47 it’s not wise. I had a second at 46 and now spend a lot of time worrying about launching my kid in case of health problems.

Not OP, but I'm in a better place emotionally, financially, and physically now at 45 than I was at 35. Spouse is also in their 30s. I'm not really freaking out about possibly having a baby this late, and they will certainly have a better foundation than I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a baby at 47? Good luck OP!

Why isn’t anyone bringing this up?

right - some PPs had success at 42. 46 is a lot different. I know several women who had pregnancies at 41/42. zero at 46.

[Anonymous]

You can get pregnant at 46 with prior frozen eggs/embryos. Your uterus does not shrivel between 42 and 46. Come on.