Literature DB >> 15734759

The couple's decision-making in IVF: one or two embryos at transfer?

M Blennborn1, S Nilsson, C Hillervik, D Hellberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the decision-making process and factors that contribute to the decision of IVF participants to choose one or two embryos at transfer.
METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-four IVF patients equally distributed in males and females were personally interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire which included 82 items.
RESULTS: In the whole study population, previous childbirth [odds ratio (OR) 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-3.6], and spare embryos to freeze (OR 23.6; 95% CI 11.2-54.5) emerged as the most important variables in patients who had one embryo transferred, while previous IVF treatments (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.6) and the assumed increased pregnancy chance (OR 0.1; 95% CI 0.05-0.3) were the most important decision-making factors among those who had two embryos. The women were more satisfied with the information (83 versus 71%; P = 0.02), and more aware of the risks with twin pregnancies (77 versus 66%; P = 0.03) than the males. The women were also more concerned about their age. Knowledge about risks of multiple pregnancies was higher in females (77%) than in males (66%, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that despite good information about the risks for complications with multiple pregnancies, many patients wish to have two embryos transferred. Spare embryos to freeze, improvement of pregnancy rate in single embryo transfer and young age of the woman are predictive of choosing single embryo transfer. However, the final decision must always be made in agreement with the physician.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15734759     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  8 in total

1.  Comparing patients' and clinicians' perceptions of elective single embryo transfer using the attitudes to a twin IVF pregnancy scale (ATIPS).

Authors:  Vibha Rai; Amanda Betsworth; Charlotte Beer; George Ndukwe; Cris Glazebrook
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  The clinical need for a method of identification of embryos destined to become a blastocyst in assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Authors:  Michael P Diamond; Susan Willman; Philip Chenette; Marcelle I Cedars
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2012-03-18       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Top quality embryos at day 2: a prerequisite for single blastocyst transfer? An observational cohort study in women under 36.

Authors:  Fabrice Guerif; Malak Lemseffer; Milène Blanchard; Dominique Royere
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2015.

Authors:  Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Sara B Crawford; Suzanne G Folger; Sheree L Boulet; Lee Warner; Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2018-02-16

5.  Preferred problem solving and decision-making role in fertility treatment among women following an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization cycle.

Authors:  Celia Hoi Yan Chan; Bobo Hi Po Lau; Michelle Yi Jun Tam; Ernest Hung Yu Ng
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 2.809

6.  Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2018.

Authors:  Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Yujia Zhang; Amy Jewett; Sheree L Boulet; Lee Warner; Charlan D Kroelinger; Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2022-02-18

7.  The knowledge of the increased risk of complications in multiple pregnancies does not affect the desire to transfer more than one embryo in in vitro fertilisation treatment.

Authors:  Edson Borges; Amanda S Setti; Daniela P A F Braga; Rose Marie Melamed; Rita Figueira; Assumpto Iaconelli
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2014-12-27

8.  Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2014.

Authors:  Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Sara B Crawford; Suzanne G Folger; Denise J Jamieson; Lee Warner; Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2017-02-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.