Effect of Maternal Aging on Fertility Outcomes in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Study of Autologous and Donor Oocyte Cycles

With increasing numbers of women delaying childbearing, age-related declines in fertility have become a significant concern, often necessitating the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Although ART has enabled many individuals and couples to achieve pregnancy, evidence shows that conceptions through ART carry higher risks of adverse outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the impact of female aging on reproductive outcomes in ART cycles, comparing outcomes between autologous and donor oocytes across different age groups. A retrospective design was employed, using medical records from two fertility clinics in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Data on age, weight, number of oocytes retrieved, embryo quality, and IVF cycle outcomes were analyzed, and the Chi-square test was used to examine associations between variables. Among 120 donor oocyte cycles, the highest positive IVF outcomes were observed in women aged 36–39 years (n = 11, 52.38%), followed by those aged 31–35 years (n = 10, 50%), 40–44 years (n = 11, 31.43%), ≤30 years (n = 9, 39.13%), and ≥45 years (n = 5, 23.81%). In the 120 autologous cycles, success rates declined progressively with age: ≤30 years (n = 15, 55.56%), 31–35 years (n = 10, 42.67%), 36–39 years (n = 6, 25%), 40–44 years (n = 2, 8.33%), and ≥45 years (n = 0, 0%). Chi-square analysis demonstrated a significant association between age and IVF outcome in autologous cycles, whereas no significant association was observed in donor cycles. These findings highlight the influence of maternal age on IVF success when using autologous oocytes and underscore the ability of donor oocytes to mitigate age-related declines in reproductive potential.

Female Ageing, Assisted Reproduction Technology

1. Bai, H., Jin, H., & Wang, Y. (2018). The effects of female age on oocyte quality and reproductive outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Ovarian Research. 11 (1) 1-10. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-018-0430-6) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Agarwal, A., Gupta, S., & Sharma, R. (2021). Role of the male in female infertility: A review. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 19 (1) 1-11. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00713-3) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Yamashita, S., Shibata, S., & Tanaka, T. (2020). Oocyte quality in women of advanced maternal age: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chromosomal aberrations and reproductive outcomes. Fertility and Sterility. 113 (5) 1130-1137. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.02.009) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barash, A., Haimovich, S., & Levin, I. (2019). Donor oocyte versus self-oocyte IVF: A meta-analysis of success rates. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 17 (1) 1-9. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-0190494-1) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Henneman, L., de Groot, S., & van der Veen, F. (2016). Psychological aspects of egg donation: A qualitative study on the experiences of oocyte recipients. Human Reproduction. 31 (7) 1531-1539. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew114) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Rosen, M. P., & Evers, J. L. (2018). Psychological aspects of donor oocyte treatment: The experience of the recipient. Fertility and Sterility. 109 (3) 488-493. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.027) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. van Loendersloot, L. L., van Wely, M., Limpens, J., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Repping, S., & van der Veen, F. (2010). Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update, 16(6), 577–589 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ratna, M. B., Bhattacharya, S., Abdulrahim, B., & McLernon, D. J. (2020). A systematic review of the quality of clinical prediction models in in vitro fertilisation. Human reproduction, 35(1), 100-116. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Smeen, K. J., Wyns, C., De Geyter, C., Kupka, M., Bergh, C., Cuevas Saiz, I., et al. (2023). ART in Europe, 2019: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Human Reproduction, 38(11), 2321–2338. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cavoretto, P. I., Giorgione, V., Sotiriadis, A., Viganò, P., Papaleo, E., Galdini, A., et al. (2022). IVF/ICSI treatment and the risk of iatrogenic preterm birth in singleton pregnancies: Systematic review and metaanalysis of cohort studies. Journal of Maternal–Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 35(11), 1987–1996. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lu, Y., Liu, L., Zhang, P., Sun, Y., Ma, C., & Li, Y. (2022). Risk of birth defects in children conceived with assisted reproductive technology: A meta-analysis. Medicine, 101(32), e32405. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Magnus, M. C., Skara, K. H., Carlsen, E. O., Gjerdevik, M., Ramlau-Hansen, C. H., Myrskylä, M., Romundstad, L.-B., &Håberg, S. E. (2025). Use of assisted reproductive technologies for male and female infertility and perinatal outcomes. Fertility and Sterility, 124(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.02.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Wasilewski, T., Łukaszewicz-Zając, M., Wasilewska, J., & Mroczko, B. (2020). Biochemistry of infertility. ClinicaChimicaActa, 508, 185-190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lazzari, E., Potančoková, M., Sobotka, T., Gray, E., & Chambers, G. M. (2023). Projecting the contribution of assisted reproductive technology to completed cohort fertility. Population Research and Policy Review, 42(1), 6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Munch, M. L., Lia, M., Wolf, B., Kohler, M., Baber, R., Singh, K., Schumacher, A., Kretschmer, T., Grabowska, R., Linded, K., Schmidt, V., Kramuschke, M., Bartley, J., Kabbani, N., Vogel, M., Guo, Y., &Kohlib, S. (2025). Multidisciplinary assessment of the impact of assisted reproductive techniques on pregnancy and long-term outcomes of mother and child: Foundation of the LE-REP Center. Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 169, 104457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jri.2025.104457 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mills, M., Rindfuss, R. R., McDonald, P., &TeVelde, E.; ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17(6), 848–860. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Pathare, A. D. S., Loid, M., Saare, M., BrusellGidlöf, S., Zamani Esteki, M., Peters, M., &Salumets, A. (2023). Endometrial receptivity in women of advanced age: An underrated factor in infertility. Human Reproduction Update, 29(6), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmad019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Osterman, M. J. K., Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., Driscoll, A. K., & Valenzuela, C. P. (2023). Births: Final data for 2021. National Vital Statistics Reports, 72(1), 1–53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sebastian-Leon, P., Sanz, F. J., Molinaro, P., Pellicer, A., & Diaz-Gimeno, P. (2025). Advanced maternal age is associated with an annual decline in reproductive success despite the use of donor oocytes: A retrospective study. Fertility and Sterility, 124(4), 635–644. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Pirtea, P., De Ziegler, D., Tao, X., Sun, L., Zhan, Y., Ayoubi, J. M., et al. (2021). Rate of true recurrent implantation failure is low: Results of three successive frozen euploid single embryo transfers. Fertility and Sterility, 115(1), 45–53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Chen, P., Yang, M., Wang, Y., Guo, Y., Liu, Y., Fang, C., et al. (2022). Aging endometrium in young women: Molecular classification of endometrial aging-based markers in women younger than 35 years with recurrent implantation failure. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 39(10), 2143–2151. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tinelli, A., Andjic, M., Morciano, A., Pecorella, G., Malvasi, A., D’Amato, A., et al. (2023). Uterine aging and reproduction: Dealing with a puzzling biological topic. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25(1), 322. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Demko, Z. P., Simon, A. L., McCoy, R. C., Petrov, D. A., & Rabinowitz, M. (2016). Effects of maternal age on euploidy rates in a large cohort of embryos analyzed with 24-chromosome SNP-based preimplantation genetic screening. Fertility and Sterility, 105(5), 1307–1313. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Rafael, F., Dias Rodrigues, M., Bellver, J., Canelas-Pais, M., Garrido, N., Garcia-Velasco, J. A., Reis Soares, S., & Santos-Ribeiro, S. (2023). The combined effect of BMI and age on ART outcomes. Human Reproduction, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead042 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Yurchuk, T., Petrushko, M., & Fuller, B. (2023). State of the art in assisted reproductive technologies for patients with advanced maternal age. Zygote, 31(2), 149-156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Problem-Based Learning Strategy: Effect on Achievement of Genetics among Biology Students in Colleges of Education Oyo, Oyo State
• Gut Content Analysis of Siganus canaliculatus (Danggit)
• Predicting Human Neurotherapeutic Response through Preclinical Imaging Intelligence
• Can Algicidal Bacteria be the Solution to Successfully Manage Freshwater Algal Blooms?
• Boosting Carbon Capture: Progress in Enhancing RuBisCO’s Carboxylase Activity