The latest issue of Human Reproduction, the world's most reputed journal on assisted reproductive technology, has an article by Dr Gayathree Murugappan and colleagues from Stanford and Seattle , which shows that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) does not improve live birth rates as compared to expectant management ( = do nothing) in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
Not only does PGS not improve their chances of conceiving, it also does not help them to conceive any quicker. For these patients, masterly inactivity ( = reassurance) is the best option.
However, as the authors point out, " counseling patients with unexplained RPL to pursue expectant management presents several challenges. These couples often feel an urgency to conceive , and expectant management can feel like a passive and time-consuming approach to conception. In addition, patients often carry a significant amount of guilt and grief in association with miscarriage. Attempting spontaneous conception can feel emotionally vulnerable; despite reassurance of good prognosis, patients doubt that a subsequent pregnancy will be successful ."
This is why IVF clinics have been promoting preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for treating patients with RPL with the goal of increasing live birth rates. It's also very profitable for the IVF clinic to offer this high-tech treatment option. However, the truth is that this does not help, as proven by this research study.
You can read the article, Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss at http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/06/07/humrep.dew135.full