Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Having a baby at 47? Good luck OP!
Why isn’t anyone bringing this up?
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Having a baby at 47? Good luck OP!
Why isn’t anyone bringing this up?
Anonymous wrote:Having a baby at 47? Good luck OP!
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.
Anonymous wrote:The odds are closely aligned to the age at which you generated the eggs.
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.