Anonymous wrote:The reason to choose SG instead is stats. But that is tempered by knowing that they don't take everyone like GW does. And that if you are outside the "norm" for their patients, they won't look for anything innovative to help you, it'll be the same formula.

This is why the "stats" discussion bothers me so much...you can't compare equal things. SG selects patients that they know will have a higher chance of success, and they end up with higher success stats. That really don't tell you if they are better than other clinics or if they are better at narrowly selecting the easier cases. I wish there were a way to compare specific things like the quality of the lab (which might be measured by their thaw success rate; though that's also imperfect, since thawing embryos isn't the same skill set as properly fertilizing and culturing them in the first place).

As with most medical practices, I feel like ART is just another instance where you can't really get a good, objective read on which doctor is the best. though I guess that's all part of medicine is an art, not a science.

I think the first poster had a lot to say about going where you felt most comfortable. I went for initial consultations at both GW and SG (and have a number of MDs at GW that I like), but the GW infertility physician was like, let's go w/IVF asap. I wanted to see if there was anything else, and SG gave me a lot of options, even the "this may not work but if feel like IVF is really your last resort you could try this other thing in the meantime..." I felt like SG listened to my interests and responded, ultimately in a way that referred me to someone outside of SG.

Ultimately, I didn't do IVF, so I can't comment on stats, but thought my experience spoke well of the physician approach at SG.

CFA (Abbasi) tweaked my protocol several times.

Here's a quote from a woman on another forum, it's a tight community and we've been following each others' journey for years:

Those waits are awful. From my one IVF cycle, I believe that each clinic uses their own grading system.
However, for mine I was told that one of letters was what would turn into the baby and one would turn into the placenta. I really take the grading with a grain of salt. I had CCS testing on 6 blasts. The "best" looking one had multiple chromosomal issues. Currently, my only healthy blast is 27 weeks gestation. She was graded a 5BB. If I didn't do the testing, she wouldn't have been the first choice to transfer.

I say wait until the testing is back and then look at those available for transfer. Just good for thought.

The grading is BS to me, and not wanting potentially chromosomally normal embryos (so precious as an AMA) tossed is one of the reasons I chose GW--that and it's nonprofit so I trusted it to be about me, not money and stats. And we did change my protocol after one disastrous cycle, whereas friends my age at CFA and SG have had doctors repeat the same unsuccessful protocol with no tweaks. GW has disadvantages, not open on weekends (no monitoring, and I was afraid they'd time retrieval and transfer around it but I had a transfer on a Sunday) BAD stats (the year I checked 2009 they were the same as SG but the last two years and 2008 are awful, for overall awful), which I guess you can explain away a little by the fact that they take everyone and don't worry about their stats.

GW did better pre-IVF testing as well, asking for prolactin and my AMH, while SG had the protocol ready without either of those two.

The reason to choose SG instead is stats. But that is tempered by knowing that they don't take everyone like GW does. And that if you are outside the "norm" for their patients, they won't look for anything innovative to help you, it'll be the same formula.

In the end I'm not pregnant but don't believe SG would have given my eggs any better a chance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although financing palys a major role in deciding clinics,
one of the big issue for me between SG and GW was:

GW - Will freeze non-blastocyst embryo (like, 2-Day, 3-Day, etc.)

SG - They do not freeze non-blastocyst embryo.
Even if you have a high quality 2-Day, 3-Day embryo, they toss them out.

Something to consider... I think.

Not true. We are doing a frozen cycle before we find our carrier and we are planning to freeze at 2 pn (whihc is i think day of fertilization) to be sure we have some to transfer later.

This is why I chose GW in the end--because I knew they would freeze hard-won embryos if I asked. Shady Grove even tosses blasts under their "standards"--which are baloney. I wanted every embryo of mine to have a chance, because the doctors absolutely do NOT know which ones will make it.

I am in a donor cycle right now and it makes me angry that I'll likely have no frozen because of Shady Grove's "stringent" (read: BS they want repeat business, because despite the "stringent" requirements, their FET success rates are low) criteria.

It may be different for GC, but that tells me that the "stringent" stuff they spew telling the rest of us why they trash our embryos is BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry to hear that, but what do you mean by too old? Using your own eggs or donor eggs? After certain age, it is unethical for doctors to recommend using your own eggs.

I don't think it's as black and white as this...a lot depends on your hormone levels. A woman in her 30s may have DOR and be per-menopausal...and some women have numbers and counts that look like a 30 year old's into their 40s. These are extreme examples and not the norm, but that's why you want a doctor to look at your case specifically and make a judgment. I understand that having strict cut offs can help boost success rates, but I want a doctor who can be honest with me about my odds with a variety of procedures. I would much rather an RE tell me that OE has a 3% chance of success compared to 30% with DE but let me decide how I want to proceed. I would also much rather my RE base those stats on what s/he's learned about me than the population at large. Age is only one indicator of fertility and egg quality. An important one, to be sure, but not the only one.

Anonymous wrote:Although financing palys a major role in deciding clinics,
one of the big issue for me between SG and GW was:

GW - Will freeze non-blastocyst embryo (like, 2-Day, 3-Day, etc.)

SG - They do not freeze non-blastocyst embryo.
Even if you have a high quality 2-Day, 3-Day embryo, they toss them out.

Something to consider... I think.

Not true. We are doing a frozen cycle before we find our carrier and we are planning to freeze at 2 pn (whihc is i think day of fertilization) to be sure we have some to transfer later.

Anonymous wrote:I've heard good things about GW. I had an initial appointment with Shady Grove, and I was treated like crap. They told me I was too old and showed me the door. However, they knew my age when I set up the appointment. So it was a total waste of time (and we waited for months for the appointment) to be told in 2 seconds, very rudely, that we were "too old." We then were referred to Columbia Fertility. What a difference! We now have twins. So I would stay far, far away from Shady Grove.

Sorry to hear that, but what do you mean by too old? Using your own eggs or donor eggs? After certain age, it is unethical for doctors to recommend using your own eggs. And if you find one, you want to stay away from that doctor. I know this from my experience. I can now look back and realized how unethical it was for the doctor at GW to recommend an IVF procedure. He told us what we wanted to hear. Our insurance did not cover it, and it was self pay. When the cycle was not successful, he wanted to set up another cycle. We left. Instead we went to SG who recommended donor egg program. We were successful the first time. So glad we did!