Literature DB >> 27416834

Factors predicting double embryo implantation following double embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology: implications for elective single embryo transfer.

Caitlin Martin1,2, Jeani Chang3, Sheree Boulet3, Denise J Jamieson3, Dmitry Kissin3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with double embryo implantation following double embryo transfer (DET) during assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures and to evaluate the implications of findings in selecting candidates for elective single embryo transfer (eSET).
METHODS: Factors predicting double embryo implantation, defined as embryo transfers with two or more heartbeats on 6-week ultrasound following DET, were assessed using the US National ART Surveillance System data from 2000 to 2012 (n = 1,793,067 fresh, autologous transfers). Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) were estimated after stratifying by prognosis. Favorable prognosis was defined as first-time ART with supernumerary embryo(s) cryopreserved. Average prognosis was defined as first-time ART without supernumerary embryo(s) cryopreserved, prior unsuccessful ART with supernumerary embryo(s) cryopreserved, or prior ART with previous birth(s) conceived with ART or naturally. Rates and factors associated with double embryo implantation were compared with single embryo implantation following DET among both prognosis groups.
RESULTS: Double embryo implantation was positively associated with blastocyst (versus cleavage) transfer in favorable (aRR = 1.58 (1.51-1.65)) and average (aRR = 1.67 (1.60-1.75)) prognosis groups and negatively associated with age >35 years in both prognosis groups. For average prognosis patients, double embryo implantation was associated with retrieving >10 oocytes (aRR = 1.22 (1.18-1.24)).
CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of prognosis, patients aged <35 years with blastocyst-stage embryos and average prognosis patients from whom >10 oocytes were retrieved may be good candidates for eSET. Physicians may consider using these data to counsel patients on eSET, which would reduce multiple gestations and associated complications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Double embryo implantation; Double embryo transfer; Elective single embryo transfer; In vitro fertilization; Multiple birth pregnancy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27416834      PMCID: PMC5065549          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0770-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  32 in total

1.  Biological predictive criteria for clinical pregnancy after elective single embryo transfer.

Authors:  Christophe Sifer; Nathalie Sermondade; Christophe Poncelet; Emna Hafhouf; Raphaël Porcher; Isabelle Cedrin-Durnerin; Brigitte Benzacken; Rachel Levy; Jean-Noël Hugues
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 2.  The risk of monozygotic twins after assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Vitthala; T A Gelbaya; D R Brison; C T Fitzgerald; L G Nardo
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 15.610

3.  Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States.

Authors:  Aniket D Kulkarni; Denise J Jamieson; Howard W Jones; Dmitry M Kissin; Maria F Gallo; Maurizio Macaluso; Eli Y Adashi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Embryo transfer practices and multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology: an opportunity for prevention.

Authors:  Dmitry M Kissin; Aniket D Kulkarni; Allison Mneimneh; Lee Warner; Sheree L Boulet; Sara Crawford; Denise J Jamieson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 5.  Multiple gestation pregnancy. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Elective single embryo transfer trends and predictors of a good perinatal outcome--United States, 1999 to 2010.

Authors:  Marissa L Steinberg; Sheree Boulet; Dmitry Kissin; Lee Warner; Denise J Jamieson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-02-26       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.  Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy.

Authors:  Antonina Sazonova; Karin Källen; Ann Thurin-Kjellberg; Ulla-Britt Wennerholm; Christina Bergh
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 7.329

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
  2 in total

1.  [Pregnancy and obstetric outcomes of elective single versus double cleavage-stage embryo transfer].

Authors:  Ling Sun; Zhi-Heng Chen; Min-Na Yin; Yu Deng; Jun Liu
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2016-04-20

2.  Clinical outcomes for Day 3 double cleavage-stage embryo transfers versus Day 5 or 6 single blastocyst transfer in frozen-thawed cycles: a retrospective comparative analysis.

Authors:  Jinpeng Rao; Feng Qiu; Shen Tian; Ya Yu; Ying Zhang; Zheng Gu; Yiting Cai; Fan Jin; Min Jin
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.671

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.