Irma Scholten1, Georgina M Chambers2, Laura van Loendersloot3, Fulco van der Veen3, Sjoerd Repping3, Judith Gianotten4, Peter G A Hompes5, William Ledger6, Ben W J Mol7. 1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: i.scholten@amc.uva.nl. 2. National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kennemer Gasthuis, Haarlem, the Netherlands. 5. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Robinson Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the value of a population view in assessing assisted reproductive technology (ART) multiple-gestation infants. DESIGN: Descriptive comparison of ART treatment and population statistics in seven developed countries (United States [U.S.], South Korea, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Denmark) with varying ART utilization and single-embryo transfer (SET) rates. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to the total number of multiple-gestation infants in a population was calculated in relation to utilization of ART and SET rates. RESULT(S): The number of ART treatments leading to embryo transfer varied from 304 per million inhabitants in the U.S. to 1,518 in Denmark. The percentage of ART cycles that utilized SET varied from 8.8% in South Korea to 53.3% in Australia. Reflecting both utilization rates and SET rates, the percentage of multiple-gestation infants in the population attributed to ART ranged from 14.7% in South Korea to 29.0% in Denmark. CONCLUSION(S): In seven countries, the contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to all multiple-gestation infants varies from 14.7% to 29.0%, a percentage that was influenced by both the SET rate per cycle and ART utilization rates. In the monitoring of safety and efficacy of fertility treatment, registration of the percentage of SET cycles alone might not be sufficient.
OBJECTIVE: To study the value of a population view in assessing assisted reproductive technology (ART) multiple-gestation infants. DESIGN: Descriptive comparison of ART treatment and population statistics in seven developed countries (United States [U.S.], South Korea, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Denmark) with varying ART utilization and single-embryo transfer (SET) rates. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to the total number of multiple-gestation infants in a population was calculated in relation to utilization of ART and SET rates. RESULT(S): The number of ART treatments leading to embryo transfer varied from 304 per million inhabitants in the U.S. to 1,518 in Denmark. The percentage of ART cycles that utilized SET varied from 8.8% in South Korea to 53.3% in Australia. Reflecting both utilization rates and SET rates, the percentage of multiple-gestation infants in the population attributed to ART ranged from 14.7% in South Korea to 29.0% in Denmark. CONCLUSION(S): In seven countries, the contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to all multiple-gestation infants varies from 14.7% to 29.0%, a percentage that was influenced by both the SET rate per cycle and ART utilization rates. In the monitoring of safety and efficacy of fertility treatment, registration of the percentage of SET cycles alone might not be sufficient.
Authors: Anna Heino; Mika Gissler; Ashna D Hindori-Mohangoo; Béatrice Blondel; Kari Klungsøyr; Ivan Verdenik; Ewa Mierzejewska; Petr Velebil; Helga Sól Ólafsdóttir; Alison Macfarlane; Jennifer Zeitlin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 3.240