Gestational carrier in assisted reproductive technology

Gayathree Murugappan, Leslie V. Farland, Stacey A. Missmer, Katharine F. Correia, Raymond M. Anchan, Elizabeth S. Ginsburg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations


Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles with the use of gestational carriers (GCs) with non-GC IVF cycles. Design: Retrospective cohort study of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles performed with (24,269) and without (1,313,452) the use of a GC. Setting: ART centers. Patient(s): Infertile patients seeking IVF with or without use of a GC. Interventions(s): Autologous and donor oocyte cycles, fresh and cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles. Main Outcome Measure(s): Live birth rate (LBR), twin and high-order multiple birth rates. Result(s): Approximately 2% of embryo transfers used a GC. Per embryo transfer, GCs had greater pregnancy rate and LBR across all IVF types compared with non-GC cycles in crude models and models adjusted a priori for potential confounders. For women with uterine-factor infertility, embryo transfer with the use of a GC resulted in a higher odds of live birth for autologous fresh embryos and for cryopreserved embryos compared with patients with non–uterine-factor infertility diagnoses. Conclusion(s): GC benefits LBRs for some patients seeking ART. The highest LBRs occurred when the indication for GC was uterine-factor infertility.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)420-428
Number of pages9
JournalFertility and Sterility
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2018


  • Gestational carrier
  • assisted reproductive technology
  • gestational surrogacy
  • in vitro fertilization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Gestational carrier in assisted reproductive technology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this