Out of 3 retrievals, only one yielded embryos that made it to freezing/testing (our first retrieval yielded 3 embryos at day 5, we transferred one fresh, that stuck, but the others didn’t make it to day 6 for freezing). We had 11 frozen/tested, 4 of which were “normal” and we discarded the rest. The big question for us is what do we do with the 2 remaining “normal” that are frozen but we don’t have plans to use. For now, we just keep paying the $500 annually to keep them frozen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who posted the link. I only posted it because we worked with Dr. Braverman and spoke with him first hand about the very small sampling of women that he used as part of the study in which he transferred abnormal embryos.

He made it clear that this was the very last option for these women. They knew the risks going into the study (possibility of TFMR or carrying a baby who is incompatible with life were obvious risks). Still, these women chose to go forward with deliberately transferring abnormal embryos, and several in the small study had success, giving birth to a healthy baby.

Based on this, along with other knowledge that he imparted, and also based on the fact that my wife had a lot of trouble getting anything to day 5, we decided to forgo any PGS testing. This was a tough call for us, as we had to TFMR at Shady Grove (which led us to then testing the one embryo that was remaining - it was normal but the cycle didn't work, we believe because the embryo was damaged during the biopsy). We proceeded to work with Dr. Braverman and Dr. Davis at Cornell, doing both fresh day 3 transfers and eventually, an FET in which the embryos were frozen on day 1. One of those non-tested, frozen on day 1 embryos took, and we now have a 10 month old.

Here is link to a study that helps explain why PGS isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27595768

I'm not saying PGS isn't beneficial - for people who are able to produce many embryos that make it to day 5, PGS absolutely makes sense. For people who have known genetic issues, PGS makes sense. But for us, we were willing to take the risk of not testing based on this information felt like a worthy gamble. It paid off for us, but I couldn't guarantee it would pay off for everyone. I wish everyone here the best of luck as they go through this very difficult journey.

Thanks for sharing so much of your experience. If you don't mind sharing, how old were you and your wife when you went through all these cycles? How many cycles did you do at SG before you decided it wasn't working there (and were you able to get your money back through shared risk)?

PP here. Our journey was an incredibly long one, but I'll try to make this concise. I've posted on here before, so our story might sound familiar.

We are a same sex couple who used a known donor. We started TTC with AI at home while our donor was in the process of also banking frozen sperm for us and when my wife (who did all of the IVF) was about 28 . After several AI cycles, several more IUI cycles at SG, we found a clinical trial in NYC that we were accepted into. The trial looked at mini versus traditional IVF, and my wife was selected for the mini arm of the study. This was when we started to realize that minimal stims were the best bet for her. We had one embryo make it to blast, and he is now 5. DW gave birth to him at age 30, almost 31. When our first child was about 15 months, we went back to Shady Grove and, knowing that she was borderline DOR, we went straight to shared risk. The first cycle worked, but the baby had a chromosomal abnormality and the pregnancy resulted in TFMR. We then tested the other remaining embryo, which was normal, but that FET failed. DW went on to have two more really shitty cycles with nothing that made it to day 5. SG didn't adjust her protocol despite the failed cycles, and despite the fact that she had successfully had one son with minimal stims (she was on max doses of menopur and follistim, and I think that really hurt her egg quality). We then got all of our money back from shared risk (remember, up to six cycles and if no live birth, you get the money back) and put that money toward working with Dr. Davis at Cornell, who is known for doing great work with complicated cases. There she moved to co-culture and day 3 fresh transfers. She got pregnant there twice (the first two IVFs there), but both resulted in miscarriages. After that, we went down the immunology rabbit hole. Part of the reason we decided to do this is because the MD IVF mandate took effect, and at that point our IVF was covered, even working with Cornell (yes, we were very lucky).

After a full work up with Dr. Braverman, he recommended laparoscopic surgery and an immune protocol that included prednisone, lovenox, and neupogen. We continued to work with Cornell for the IVF side of things. The first cycle on the immune protocol was a BFN, but then about 4 months later, on the same protocol, she transferred two embryos frozen on day 1. One of those resulted in our now 10 month old.

I am forever grateful to Dr. Davis, Dr. Braverman, and Dr. Hamersley, who was my wife's MFM after she got pregnant this last time. I'm not sure if it was just luck or if the immune protocol really did something - I do believe that it made a difference. We now have leftover embryos, and have decided that if we go for a third, we will not use Dr. Braverman but try as much as possible to emulate his previous protocol to whatever extent we can. Tests run during DW's pregnancy did show that lovenox was essential, so at the very least, she'll do that.

I do think that SG does good work for many, many women, but because they serve so many, the more complex cases aren't properly addressed. I was shocked to learn recently that one of the SG doctors agreed to prescribe some of the immune meds because my understanding was that they do not buy into that at all. We just knew it was time to go somewhere that dealt with more complicated cases; I like Cornell for this. The doctors, not technicians, do the monitoring during your cycles and tweak meds accordingly. They are open to trying things that other clinics are not, and they have great success with women who are older or have DOR.

Again, best of luck. This is a grueling journey that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't test and my few blasts and early transfers over 8 cycles never stuck. Pregnant with heartbeat on first try with normal embryo from a DE. The article is clear that docs that think PGS isn't accurate, still don't think that most abnormals aren't suitable. All the abnormals from my DE cycle would have been unacceptable. The woman banked 18 and only 4 were even a possibility and not all of the transferred embryos stuck. I think I'd probably be angry at not knowing this stuff if I'd tested mine and discarded abnormals, but I also think that the people who think that 40% of the abnormals are instead normal, especially for older women, are wrong. Other studies suggest that close to 50% of pregnancies in normally fertile women end in miscarriage. So if you consider about half aren't going to work out as the baseline (and about half of my DE embryos were complex abnormal), it's pretty hard to believe that 40% of abnormals would result in a healthy child. And I don't think that past IVF data before PGS was available supports that either.

Maybe so, but out of the four “abnormals” I was forced to destroy, I only needed one to work in order to have my much desired child.

I didn't test and my few blasts and early transfers over 8 cycles never stuck. Pregnant with heartbeat on first try with normal embryo from a DE. The article is clear that docs that think PGS isn't accurate, still don't think that most abnormals aren't suitable. All the abnormals from my DE cycle would have been unacceptable. The woman banked 18 and only 4 were even a possibility and not all of the transferred embryos stuck. I think I'd probably be angry at not knowing this stuff if I'd tested mine and discarded abnormals, but I also think that the people who think that 40% of the abnormals are instead normal, especially for older women, are wrong. Other studies suggest that close to 50% of pregnancies in normally fertile women end in miscarriage. So if you consider about half aren't going to work out as the baseline (and about half of my DE embryos were complex abnormal), it's pretty hard to believe that 40% of abnormals would result in a healthy child. And I don't think that past IVF data before PGS was available supports that either.

From my last cycle I had 3 embryos which were all PGS/PGD testsed. I was normal for both, 1 was abnormal for both and 1 was normal PGS but abnormal PGD. The PGD I tested for was fragile x premutation, I am a carrier. I'm keeping the abnormal PGD/normal PGS embryo and will use that one if the normal PGD/normal PGS doesn't work. For me it's very specific why I'm keeping the PGD abnormal. I know that is a female and I already have a DD with a fragile x premutation who is totally normal and healthy in every way. And I know that PGD premutation in male is way worse then female as I myself have a premutation so I'm keeping that "abnormal" embryo because it's not really that flawed in my opinion. I discarded the abnormal pgd/pgs though.
I've done extensive genetic research and testing so that is why I feel confident keeping and possibly using the abnormal pgd embryo.
Best of luck in your journey!

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who posted the link. I only posted it because we worked with Dr. Braverman and spoke with him first hand about the very small sampling of women that he used as part of the study in which he transferred abnormal embryos.

He made it clear that this was the very last option for these women. They knew the risks going into the study (possibility of TFMR or carrying a baby who is incompatible with life were obvious risks). Still, these women chose to go forward with deliberately transferring abnormal embryos, and several in the small study had success, giving birth to a healthy baby.

Based on this, along with other knowledge that he imparted, and also based on the fact that my wife had a lot of trouble getting anything to day 5, we decided to forgo any PGS testing. This was a tough call for us, as we had to TFMR at Shady Grove (which led us to then testing the one embryo that was remaining - it was normal but the cycle didn't work, we believe because the embryo was damaged during the biopsy). We proceeded to work with Dr. Braverman and Dr. Davis at Cornell, doing both fresh day 3 transfers and eventually, an FET in which the embryos were frozen on day 1. One of those non-tested, frozen on day 1 embryos took, and we now have a 10 month old.

Here is link to a study that helps explain why PGS isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27595768

I'm not saying PGS isn't beneficial - for people who are able to produce many embryos that make it to day 5, PGS absolutely makes sense. For people who have known genetic issues, PGS makes sense. But for us, we were willing to take the risk of not testing based on this information felt like a worthy gamble. It paid off for us, but I couldn't guarantee it would pay off for everyone. I wish everyone here the best of luck as they go through this very difficult journey.

Thanks for sharing so much of your experience. If you don't mind sharing, how old were you and your wife when you went through all these cycles? How many cycles did you do at SG before you decided it wasn't working there (and were you able to get your money back through shared risk)?

I'm the PP who posted the link. I only posted it because we worked with Dr. Braverman and spoke with him first hand about the very small sampling of women that he used as part of the study in which he transferred abnormal embryos.

He made it clear that this was the very last option for these women. They knew the risks going into the study (possibility of TFMR or carrying a baby who is incompatible with life were obvious risks). Still, these women chose to go forward with deliberately transferring abnormal embryos, and several in the small study had success, giving birth to a healthy baby.

Based on this, along with other knowledge that he imparted, and also based on the fact that my wife had a lot of trouble getting anything to day 5, we decided to forgo any PGS testing. This was a tough call for us, as we had to TFMR at Shady Grove (which led us to then testing the one embryo that was remaining - it was normal but the cycle didn't work, we believe because the embryo was damaged during the biopsy). We proceeded to work with Dr. Braverman and Dr. Davis at Cornell, doing both fresh day 3 transfers and eventually, an FET in which the embryos were frozen on day 1. One of those non-tested, frozen on day 1 embryos took, and we now have a 10 month old.

Here is link to a study that helps explain why PGS isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27595768

I'm not saying PGS isn't beneficial - for people who are able to produce many embryos that make it to day 5, PGS absolutely makes sense. For people who have known genetic issues, PGS makes sense. But for us, we were willing to take the risk of not testing based on this information felt like a worthy gamble. It paid off for us, but I couldn't guarantee it would pay off for everyone. I wish everyone here the best of luck as they go through this very difficult journey.

Anonymous wrote:Shady Grove made me discard them on the day of my embryo transfer. And they didn't really give me much choice about it. i was laying on the table waiting for my FET when they made me sign a document doing it.

SGF tried really hard to talk me into discarding my abnormals. I ended up talking to the director of the clinic and demanded that the lab freezes and stores all embryos. They reluctantly let me do it.

I just read the linked article from above and I’m absolutely heartsick that I was forced to discard “abnormal” embryos. The only ones I ever had make it to blast.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, they are just a bunch of cells that are incompatible with life. Don't waste your money--have them discarded.

This just isn’t true in all cases.


https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/ivf-abnormal-embryos-new-last-chance.html

I just read this and it made my stomach turn.