Literature DB >> 25683965

Application of a validated prediction model for in vitro fertilization: comparison of live birth rates and multiple birth rates with 1 embryo transferred over 2 cycles vs 2 embryos in 1 cycle.

Barbara Luke1, Morton B Brown2, Ethan Wantman3, Judy E Stern4, Valerie L Baker5, Eric Widra6, Charles C Coddington7, William E Gibbons8, Bradley J Van Voorhis9, G David Ball10.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to use a validated prediction model to examine whether single embryo transfer (SET) over 2 cycles results in live birth rates (LBR) comparable with 2 embryos transferred (DET) in 1 cycle and reduces the probability of a multiple birth (ie, multiple birth rate [MBR]). STUDY
DESIGN: Prediction models of LBR and MBR for a woman considering assisted reproductive technology developed from linked cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System for 2006-2012 were used to compare SET over 2 cycles with DET in 1 cycle. The prediction model was based on a woman's age, body mass index (BMI), gravidity, previous full-term births, infertility diagnoses, embryo state, number of embryos transferred, and number of cycles.
RESULTS: To demonstrate the effect of the number of embryos transferred (1 or 2), the LBRs and MBRs were estimated for women with a single infertility diagnosis (male factor, ovulation disorders, diminished ovarian reserve, and unexplained); nulligravid; BMI of 20, 25, 30, and 35 kg/m2; and ages 25, 35, and 40 years old by cycle (first or second). The cumulative LBR over 2 cycles with SET was similar to or better than the LBR with DET in a single cycle (for example, for women with the diagnosis of ovulation disorders: 35 years old; BMI, 30 kg/m2; 54.4% vs 46.5%; and for women who are 40 years old: BMI, 30 kg/m(2); 31.3% vs 28.9%). The MBR with DET in 1 cycle was 32.8% for women 35 years old and 20.9% for women 40 years old; with SET, the cumulative MBR was 2.7% and 1.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The application of this validated predictive model demonstrated that the cumulative LBR is as good as or better with SET over 2 cycles than with DET in 1 cycle, while greatly reducing the probability of a multiple birth.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  assisted reproductive technology; live birth; multiple birth; prediction model

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25683965      PMCID: PMC4416976          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  67 in total

1.  Prevention of twin pregnancies after IVF/ICSI by single embryo transfer. ESHRE Campus Course Report.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Insurance mandates, embryo transfer, outcomes--the link is tenuous.

Authors:  Nicole K Banks; John M Norian; M Kate Bundorf; Melinda B Henne
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2010-06-26       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Racial and ethnic disparities in assisted reproductive technology pregnancy and live birth rates within body mass index categories.

Authors:  Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Judy E Stern; Stacey A Missmer; Victor Y Fujimoto; Richard Leach
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2006.

Authors:  Ragaa Mansour; Osamu Ishihara; G David Adamson; Silke Dyer; Jacques de Mouzon; Karl Gosta Nygren; Elizabeth Sullivan; Fernando Zegers-Hochschild
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Predicting personalized multiple birth risks after in vitro fertilization-double embryo transfer.

Authors:  Benjamin M Lannon; Bokyung Choi; Michele R Hacker; Laura E Dodge; Beth A Malizia; C Brent Barrett; Wing H Wong; Mylene W M Yao; Alan S Penzias
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  A prediction model for live birth and multiple births within the first three cycles of assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Ethan Wantman; Judy E Stern; Valerie L Baker; Eric Widra; Charles C Coddington; William E Gibbons; G David Ball
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Very low birth weight outcomes of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, January 1993 through December 1994.

Authors:  D K Stevenson; L L Wright; J A Lemons; W Oh; S B Korones; L A Papile; C R Bauer; B J Stoll; J E Tyson; S Shankaran; A A Fanaroff; E F Donovan; R A Ehrenkranz; J Verter
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Triplets and higher-order multiple births. Time trends and infant mortality.

Authors:  J L Kiely; J C Kleinman; M Kiely
Journal:  Am J Dis Child       Date:  1992-07

10.  Assisted reproductive technology surveillance -- United States, 2010.

Authors:  Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Sara Crawford; John E Anderson; Suzanne G Folger; Denise J Jamieson; Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2013-12-06
View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Public Health Implications of Very Preterm Birth.

Authors:  Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 3.430

2.  Is the wrong question being asked in infertility research?

Authors:  Barbara Luke; Judy E Stern; Mark D Hornstein; Milton Kotelchuck; Hafsatou Diop; Howard Cabral; Eugene R Declercq
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Costs of achieving live birth from assisted reproductive technology: a comparison of sequential single and double embryo transfer approaches.

Authors:  Sara Crawford; Sheree L Boulet; Allison S Mneimneh; Kiran M Perkins; Denise J Jamieson; Yujia Zhang; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  A validated model for predicting live birth after embryo transfer.

Authors:  Michael S Awadalla; Kristin A Bendikson; Jacqueline R Ho; Lynda K McGinnis; Ali Ahmady
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Accounting for past patient composition in evaluations of quality reporting.

Authors:  Katherine I Tierney; Samuel Fishman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.734

Review 6.  Is a Blanket Elective Single Embryo Transfer Policy Defensible?

Authors:  Eli Y Adashi; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-04-28

7.  In-vitro fertilization and spontaneous pregnancies: matching outcomes in Douala, Cameroon.

Authors:  Thomas Obinchemti Egbe; Guy Sandjon; Clovis Ourtchingh; André Simo; Eugene Belley Priso; Jean-Louis Benifla
Journal:  Fertil Res Pract       Date:  2016-01-19

8.  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

9.  Should single embryo transfer be used in patients with any kind of infertility factor? Preliminary outcomes.

Authors:  Pedro Aa Monteleone; Paula Gmf Petersen; Pedro Fm Peregrino; Juliana Miorin; Alecsandra P Gomes; Mariana G Fujii; Hamilton de Martin; Tatiana Cs Bonetti; Sergio P Gonçalves
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2019-08-22

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.