Literature DB >> 28923285

Patient and cycle characteristics predicting high pregnancy rates with single-embryo transfer: an analysis of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology outcomes between 2004 and 2013.

Jennifer Mersereau1, Jamie Stanhiser2, Charles Coddington3, Tiffany Jones3, Barbara Luke4, Morton B Brown5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyze factors associated with high live birth rate and low multiple birth rate in fresh and frozen-thawed assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis.
SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): The study population included 181,523 women undergoing in vitro fertilization with autologous fresh first cycles, 27,033 with fresh first oocyte donor cycles, 37,658 with fresh second cycles, and 35,446 with frozen-thawed second cycles. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live birth rate and multiple birth rate after single-embryo transfer (SET) and double embryo transfer (DET) were measured, in addition to cycle characteristics. RESULT(S): In patients with favorable prognostic factors, including younger maternal age, transfer of a blastocyst, and additional embryos cryopreserved, the gain in the live birth rate from SET to DET was approximately 10%-15%; however, the multiple birth rate increased from approximately 2% to greater than 49% in both autologous and donor fresh and frozen-thawed transfer cycles. CONCLUSION(S): This study reports a 10%-15% reduction in live birth rate and a 47% decrement in multiple birth rate with SET compared with DET in the setting of favorable patient prognostic factors. Our findings present an opportunity to increase the rate of SET across the United States and thereby reduce the multiple birth rate and its associated poor perinatal outcomes with assisted reproductive technology pregnancies.
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Double embryo transfer (DET); SART; live birth rate (LBR); multiple birth rate (MBR); single-embryo transfer (SET)

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28923285     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  9 in total

1.  Guidance for elective single-embryo transfer should be applied to frozen embryo transfer cycles.

Authors:  Melanie R Freeman; M Shaun Hinds; Kay G Howard; Julie M Howard; George A Hill
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Effectiveness and Safety of Two Consecutive Cycles of Single Embryo Transfer Compared With One Cycle of Double Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yangqin Peng; Shujuan Ma; Liang Hu; Xiaojuan Wang; Yiquan Xiong; Minghong Yao; Jing Tan; Fei Gong
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 6.055

3.  When using donor oocytes, does embryo stage matter? An analysis of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfers using a cryopreserved donor oocyte bank.

Authors:  Sarah M Capelouto; Audrey J Gaskins; Zsolt Peter Nagy; Daniel B Shapiro; Jessica B Spencer; Heather S Hipp
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  Prevalence of a Good Perinatal Outcome With Cryopreserved Compared With Fresh Donor Oocytes.

Authors:  Jennifer L Eaton; Tracy Truong; Yi-Ju Li; Alex J Polotsky
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 7.623

5.  The Canadian Assisted Reproductive Technologies Register (CARTR) Plus database: a validation study.

Authors:  V Bacal; D B Fell; H Shapiro; A Lanes; A E Sprague; M Johnson; M Walker; L M Gaudet
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2020-03-06

6.  Is there still a role for a cleavage-stage embryo transfer?

Authors:  Michael F Neblett; Tana Kim; Tiffanny L Jones; Sarah C Baumgarten; Charles C Coddington; Yulian Zhao; Chandra C Shenoy
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2021-06-29

7.  Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shujuan Ma; Yangqin Peng; Liang Hu; Xiaojuan Wang; Yiquan Xiong; Yi Tang; Jing Tan; Fei Gong
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 5.211

8.  The Potential of Nanotechnology in Medically Assisted Reproduction.

Authors:  Mariana H Remião; Natalia V Segatto; Adriana Pohlmann; Silvia S Guterres; Fabiana K Seixas; Tiago Collares
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 5.810

9.  Tubal infertility and pelvic adhesion increase risk of heterotopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Ruyu Pi; Yu Liu; Xia Zhao; Ping Liu; Xiaorong Qi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 1.817

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.