STUDY QUESTION: To evaluate the implementation of the coding systems in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres in the European Union (EU). SUMMARY ANSWER: Our data show that a significant number of MAR centres use the Single European Code (SEC), but it also shows certain limitations to the coding. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traceability and identification of tissue and cells used for clinical application are extremely important as it is one of the key aspects of quality and safety both for the donors and the recipients. Patients as well as tissues and cells move across the European continent and far beyond, hence a uniform coding system was very much needed. The coding of tissues and cells from human origin was already embedded in the EU directives 2004/23/EC. The use of the Single European Code (SEC) on tissues and cells was enforced in 2017 for tissues and cells distributed within the EU or exported from the EU. The SEC ensures standardization within the EU, allowing the integration of the two existing codes (ISBT-128 and Eurocode) within the SEC structure. Likewise, in the MAR field, the SEC was launched in order to ensure the traceability of reproductive tissues and cells. Gametes and embryos from partner donation as well as reproductive cells and tissues of allogeneic donation were excluded from the SEC as long as they remain in the centre of origin. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey aimed to gain insight into the use of SEC by MAR centres was conducted between 5 November and 15 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The online survey was distributed among the ESHRE members. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The survey results highlight the strengths and weaknesses in the practical use of the SEC. The data from the survey showed that the SEC code is something that is known in the MAR field. Our data showed that over half of the respondents were using the SEC in their centre. On the other hand, there is also criticism about the use of SEC in MAR, especially that ...
STUDY QUESTION: To evaluate the implementation of the coding systems in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres in the European Union (EU). SUMMARY ANSWER: Our data show that a significant number of MAR centres use the Single European Code (SEC), but it also shows certain limitations to the coding. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traceability and identification of tissue and cells used for clinical application are extremely important as it is one of the key aspects of quality and safety both for the donors and the recipients. Patients as well as tissues and cells move across the European continent and far beyond, hence a uniform coding system was very much needed. The coding of tissues and cells from human origin was already embedded in the EU directives 2004/23/EC. The use of the Single European Code (SEC) on tissues and cells was enforced in 2017 for tissues and cells distributed within the EU or exported from the EU. The SEC ensures standardization within the EU, allowing the integration of the two existing codes (ISBT-128 and Eurocode) within the SEC structure. Likewise, in the MAR field, the SEC was launched in order to ensure the traceability of reproductive tissues and cells. Gametes and embryos from partner donation as well as reproductive cells and tissues of allogeneic donation were excluded from the SEC as long as they remain in the centre of origin. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey aimed to gain insight into the use of SEC by MAR centres was conducted between 5 November and 15 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The online survey was distributed among the ESHRE members. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The survey results highlight the strengths and weaknesses in the practical use of the SEC. The data from the survey showed that the SEC code is something that is known in the MAR field. Our data showed that over half of the respondents were using the SEC in their centre. On the other hand, there is also criticism about the use of SEC in MAR, especially that the added value for traceability and identification in ART is found to be rather limited. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The survey response rate was rather low (4.84%). The view of the use of SEC discussed in this paper still provides insight into the use of the SEC in several MAR centres. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The survey highlights some knowledge gaps concerning coding. This information can be used to develop tools to increase knowledge of the SEC. ; Peer reviewed
STUDY QUESTION: What are the reported data on cycles in ART, IUI and fertility preservation (FP) interventions in 2016 as compared to previous years, as well as the main trends over the years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 20th ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows a progressive increase in reported treatment cycle numbers in Europe, with a decrease in the number of transfers with more than one embryo causing a reduction of multiple delivery rates (DR), as well as higher pregnancy rates and DR after frozen embryo replacement (FER) compared to fresh IVF and ICSI cycles, while the outcomes for IUI cycles remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been collected, analysed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) and reported in 19 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Yearly collection of European medically assisted reproduction (MAR) data by EIM for ESHRE. The data on treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2016 in 40 European countries were provided by either National Registries or registries based on personal initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In all, 1347 clinics offering ART services in 40 countries reported a total of 918 159 treatment cycles, involving 156 002 with IVF, 407 222 with ICSI, 248 407 with FER, 27 069 with preimplantation genetic testing, 73 927 with egg donation (ED), 654 with IVM of oocytes and 4878 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). European data on IUI using husband/partner's semen (IUI-H) and donor semen (IUI-D) were reported from 1197 institutions offering IUI in 29 and 24 countries, respectively. A total of 162 948 treatments with IUI-H and 50 467 treatments with IUI-D were included. A total of 13 689 FP interventions from 11 countries including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking in pre-and postpubertal patients were reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 20 countries (18 in 2015) with a total population of approximately 325 million inhabitants, in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, a total of 461 401 treatment cycles were performed, corresponding to a mean of 1410 cycles per million inhabitants (range 82–3088 per million inhabitants). In the 40 reporting countries, after IVF the clinical pregnancy rates (PR) per aspiration and per transfer in 2016 were similar to those observed in 2015 (28.0% and 34.8% vs 28.5% and 34.6%, respectively). After ICSI, the corresponding rates were also similar to those achieved in 2015 (25% and 33.2% vs 26.2% and 33.2%). After FER with own embryos, the PR per thawing is still on the rise, from 29.2% in 2015 to 30.9% in 2016. After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.4% (49.6% in 2015) and per FOR 43.6% (43.4% in 2015). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and 4 embryos in 41.5%, 51.9%, 6.2% and 0.4% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 37.7%, 53.9%, 7.9% and 0.5% in 2015). This resulted in a proportion of singleton, twin and triplet DRs of 84.8%, 14.9% and 0.3%, respectively (compared to 83.1%, 16.5% and 0.4%, respectively in 2015). Treatments with FER in 2016 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 11.9% and 0.2%, respectively (vs 12.3% and 0.3% in 2015). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.9% after IUI-H (7.8% in 2015) and at 12.4% after IUI-D (12.0% in 2015). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.8% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2015: 8.9% and 0.5%) and 7.7% and 0.4% after IUI-D (in 2015: 7.3% and 0.6%). The majority of FP interventions included the cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n¼7877 from 11 countries) and of oocytes (n¼4907 from eight countries). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As the methods of data collection and levels of completeness of reported data vary among European countries, the results should be interpreted with caution. A number of countries failed to provide adequate data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 20th ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Being already the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, continuous efforts to stimulate data collection and reporting strive for future quality control of the data, transparency and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine. ; The study has no external funding and all costs were covered by ESHRE. ; peer-reviewed
