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. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Electronic address: lukeb@msu.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Redshift Technologies, Inc., New York, New York. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. 6. Shady Grove Fertility Center, Washington, DC. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. 10. Seattle Reproductive Medicine, Seattle, WA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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