G M Hartshorne1, R J Lilford. 1. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK. ghartshorne@bio.warwick.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A trade-off exists between the risk of multiple pregnancy and prospects of pregnancy itself in assisted reproduction. Blastocyst culture and embryo transfer after approximately 5 days may be one method of reconciling this dilemma, although a controversial one. METHODS AND RESULTS: We presented a questionnaire to groups of patients, embryologists and clinicians to solicit views on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple pregnancy. The results indicate that patients are more accepting of multiple pregnancy as a prospective outcome of treatment than those involved in their treatment, despite awareness of the risks. Our data tend to support a genuine difference in values on this point. We also sought views on the patient selection criteria and treatment protocols which should apply in a planned randomized controlled trial comparing blastocyst culture with cleaving embryo transfer (e.g. numbers of embryos to transfer, acceptable levels of risk of twin and triplet pregnancy, the proportion of patients who would be put off from entering the trial by the risk of no embryo transfer). These are presented and discussed with reference to their likely impact on trial recruitment, highlighting differences in perspective between patients and professionals. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there are differences among patients, embryologists and clinicians in their perceptions of the desirability of multiple pregnancy, their preferences in certain practical aspects of treatment such as embryo transfer numbers, and their ideas on blastocyst culture and its prospective outcomes and risks.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A trade-off exists between the risk of multiple pregnancy and prospects of pregnancy itself in assisted reproduction. Blastocyst culture and embryo transfer after approximately 5 days may be one method of reconciling this dilemma, although a controversial one. METHODS AND RESULTS: We presented a questionnaire to groups of patients, embryologists and clinicians to solicit views on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple pregnancy. The results indicate that patients are more accepting of multiple pregnancy as a prospective outcome of treatment than those involved in their treatment, despite awareness of the risks. Our data tend to support a genuine difference in values on this point. We also sought views on the patient selection criteria and treatment protocols which should apply in a planned randomized controlled trial comparing blastocyst culture with cleaving embryo transfer (e.g. numbers of embryos to transfer, acceptable levels of risk of twin and triplet pregnancy, the proportion of patients who would be put off from entering the trial by the risk of no embryo transfer). These are presented and discussed with reference to their likely impact on trial recruitment, highlighting differences in perspective between patients and professionals. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there are differences among patients, embryologists and clinicians in their perceptions of the desirability of multiple pregnancy, their preferences in certain practical aspects of treatment such as embryo transfer numbers, and their ideas on blastocyst culture and its prospective outcomes and risks.