Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:55:41.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

55 - Single Embryo Transfer

from PART III - ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

It has always been silently accepted that a high proportion of iatrogenic twins and high-order multiple pregnancies (HOMPs) was the price to be paid for a reasonable success rate of a treatment that is physically and emotionally demanding and, in many cases, expensive (Rizk et al. 1989). Even though many twins are delivered healthy and advances in neonatal medicine have decreased mortality and morbidity of premature babies from multiple pregnancies, there remains an important increase in the absolute numbers of (severe) pathologies. Tan et al. also pointed to the possible increase in average costs for multiple pregnancies, deliveries, and neonatal care (Rizk et al. 1991; Tan et al. 1992; Hidlebaugh et al. 1997; Wølner-Hanssen and Rydhstroem 1998; De Sutter et al. 2002; Ericson et al. 2002; Garceau et al. 2002; Ellison and Hall 2003); severe stress experienced by parents of multiples (Ostfeld et al. 2000; Glazebrook et al. 2004); and the lifelong support needed for mildly or severely disabled children.

MP causes several well-documented pathologies, extensively reviewed elsewhere (Dhont et al. 1997, 1999; Pons et al. 1998a,b; Senat et al. 1998; Bergh et al. 1999; Koudstaal et al. 2000a,b; Wennerholm and Bergh 2000, 2004a,b; Rydhstroem and Heraib 2001; Klemetti et al. 2002; Lynch et al. 2002; Strömberg et al. 2002; Wang et al. 2002; Helmerhorst et al. 2004), comprising both maternal and fetal/neonatal risks and complications.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, GW, Ginsburg, ES (2002) Early pregnancy loss in in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a positive predictor of subsequent IVF success. Fertil Steril 77, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergh, C (2005) Single embryo transfer: a mini-review. Hum Reprod 20, 323–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergh, T, Ericson, A, Hillensjö, T, Nygren, KG, Wennerholm, UB (1999) Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilization in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 453, 1579–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, D, Proctor, M, Johnson, N, Olive, D (2004) The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane Review. Hum Reprod 19, 795–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckett, W, Tan, SL (2004) What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The importance of informed choice. Hum Reprod 19, 1043–1045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bungum, M, Bungum, L, Humaidan, P, Yding Andersen, C (2003) Day 3 versus day 5 embryo transfer: a prospective randomized study. Reprod BioMed Online 7, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catt, J, Wood, T, Henman, M, Jansen, R (2003) Single embryo transfer in IVF to prevent multiple pregnancies. Twin Res 6, 536–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, JA (2002) An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 8, 265–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Commenges-Ducos, M, Tricaud, S, Papaxanthos-Roche, A, Dallay, D, Horovitz, J, Commenges, D (1998) Modelling of the probability of success of the stages of in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: stimulation, fertilization and implantation. Hum Reprod 13, 78–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coskun, S, Hollanders, J, Al-Hassan, S, Al-Sufyan, H, Al-Mayman, H, Jaroudi, K (2000) Day 5 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a controlled randomized trial. Hum Reprod 15, 1947–1952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Criniti, A, Thyer, A, Chow, G, Lin, P, Klein, N, Soules, M (2005) Elective single blastocyst transfer reduces twin rates without compromising pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 84, 1613–1619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croucher, CA, Lass, A, Margara, R, Winston, RM (1998) Predictive value of the results of a first in-vitro fertilization cycle on the outcome of subsequent cycles. Hum Reprod 13, 403–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Alton, M (2004) Infertility and the desire for multiple births. Fertil Steril 81, 523–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dean, NL, Philips, SJ, Buckett, WM, Biljan, MM, Lin Tan, S (2000) Impact of reducing the number of embryos transferred from three to two in women under the age of 35 who produced three or more high-quality embryos. Fertil Steril 74, 820–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neubourg, D, Mangelschots, K, Royen, E, Vercruyssen, M, Ryckaert, G, Valkenburg, M, Barudy-Vasquez, J, Gerris, J (2003) Impact of patients' choice for single embryo transfer of a top quality embryo versus double transfer in the first IVF/ICSI cycle. Hum Reprod 17, 2621–2625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neubourg, D, Mangelschots, K, Royen, E, Vercruyssen, M, Gerris, J (2004) Singleton pregnancies are equally affected by ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome as twin pregnancies. Fertil Steril 82, 1691–1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neubourg, D, Gerris, J, Mangelschots, K, Royen, E, Vercruyssen, M, Steylemans, A, Elseviers, M (2006) The obstetrical and neonatal outcome of babies born after single-embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI compares favourably to spontaneously conceived babies. Hum Reprod 21, 1041–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutter, P, Gerris, J, Dhont, M (2002) A health-economic decision-analytic model comparing double with single embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 17, 2891–2896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutter, P, Elst, J, Coetsier, T, Dhont, M (2003a) Single embryo transfer and multiple pregnancy rate reduction after IVF/ICSI: a 5-year appraisal. Reprod Biomed Online 18, 464–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, P, Gerris, J, Dhont, M (2003b) A health-economic decision-analytic model comparing double with single embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI: a sensitivity analysis. Hum Reprod 18, 1361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutter, P, Bontinck, J, Schutysers, V, Elst, J, Gerris, J, Dhont, M (2006a) First-trimester bleeding and pregnancy outcome in singletons after assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod (advance access publication).Google ScholarPubMed
Sutter, P, Delbaere, I, Gerris, J, Goetgeluk, S, Elst, J, Temmerman, M, Dhont, M (2006b) Birth weight of singletons in ART is higher after single than after double embryo transfer. Hum Reprod (advance access publication).Google ScholarPubMed
Dhont, M, Neubourg, F, Elst, J, Sutter, P (1997) Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: a case-control study. J Assist Reprod Genet 14, 575–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhont, M, Sutter, P, Ruyssinck, G, Martens, G, Bekaert, A (1999) Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181, 688–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellison, MA, Hall, JE (2003) Social stigma and compound losses: quality-of-life issues for multiple-birth families. Fertil Steril 80, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Toukhy, T, Khalaf, Y, Peter, Braude (2006) IVF results: optimize not maximize. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194, 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericson, A, Nygren, KG, Otterblad Olausson, P, Källén, B (2002) Hospital care utilization of infants born after IVF. Hum Reprod 17, 929–932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law (2003) Ethical issues related to multiple pregnancies in medically assisted procreation. Hum Reprod 18, 1976–1979.CrossRef
Flisser, E, Licciardi, F (2006) One at a time. Fertil Steril 85, 555–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garceau, L, Henderson, J, Davis, LJ, Petrou, S, Henderson, LR, Mc Veigh, DH, Barlow, DH, Davidson, LL (2002) Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod 17, 3090–3109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Surrey, E, Minjarez, D, Leitz, A, Stevens, J, Schoolcraft, W (2004) Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 81, 551–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerris, J. (2005) Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisalHum Reprod Update 11, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerris, J, Neubourg, D, Mangelschots, K, Royen, E, Meerssche, M, Valkenburg, M (1999) Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 14, 2581–2587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerris, J, Royen, E, Neubourg, D, Mangelschots, K, Valkenburg, M, Ryckaert, G (2001) Impact of single embryo transfer on the overall and twin-pregnancy rates of an IVF/ICSI programme. RBM Online 2, 172–177.Google Scholar
Gerris, J, Neubourg, D, Mangelschots, K, Royen, E, Vercruyssen, M, Barudy-Vasquez, J, Valkenburg, M, Ryckaert, G (2002) Elective single day-3 embryo transfer halves the twinning rate without decrease in the ongoing pregnancy rate of an IVF/ICSI programme. Hum Reprod 17, 2621–2626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerris, J, Neubourg, D, Sutter, P, Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, Vercruyssen, M (2003) Cryopreservation as a tool to reduce multiple birth. Reprod BioMed Online 7, 286–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerris, J, Sutter, P, Neubourg, D, Royen, E, Elst, J, Mangelschots, K, Vercruyssen, M, Kok, P, Elseviers, M, Annemans, L, et al. (2004) A real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 19, 917–923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giorgetti, C, Terriou, P, Auquier, P, Hans, E, Spach, J-L, Salzmann, J, Roulier, R (1995) Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 10, 2427–2431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glazebrook, C, Sheard, C, Cox, S, Oates, M, Ndukwe, G (2004) Parenting stress in first-time mothers of twins and triplets conceived after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 81, 505–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleicher, N, Barad, D. The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod (advance access publication).
Hardarson, T, Hanson, C, Sjögren, A, Lundin, K (2001) Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 16, 313–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartshorne, GM, Lilford, RJ (2002) Different perspectives of patients and health care professionals on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 17, 1023–1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helmerhorst, FM, Perquin, DAM, Donker, D, Keirse, MJNC (2004) Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 328, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henman, M, Catt, JW, Wood, T, Bowman, MC, Boer, KA, Jansen, RPS (2005) Elective transfer of single fresh blastocysts and later transfer of cryostored blastocysts reduces the twin pregnancy rate and can improve the in vitro fertilization live birth rate in younger women. Fertil Steril 84, 1620–1627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hidlebaugh, DA, Thompson, IE, Berger, MJ (1997) Cost of assisted reproductive technologies for a health maintenance organization. J Reprod Med 42, 570–574.Google ScholarPubMed
Hsu, M-I, Mayer, J, Aronshon, M, Lanzendorf, S, Muasher, S, Kolm, P, Oehninger, S (1999) Embryo implantation in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact of cleavage status, morphology grade, and number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril 72, 679–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, KV, Ginsburg, ES, Hornstein, MD, Rein, MS, Clarke, RN (1998) Multinucleation in normally fertilized embryos is associated with an accelerated ovulation induction response and lower implantation and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 70, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, RA, Gibson, KA, Wu, YW, Croughan, MS (2004) Perinatal outcome in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 103, 551–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, T, Harlow, BL, Horstein, MD (2002) Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 347, 661–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, HW, Schnorr, JA (2001) Multiple pregnancies: a call for action. Fertil Steril 75, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, HW Jr., Veeck, LL, Muasher, SJ (1995) Cryopreservation: the problem of evaluation. Hum Reprod 10, 2136–2138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, HW Jr., Jones, D, Kolm, P (1997a) Cryopreservation: a simplified method of evaluation. Hum Reprod 12, 584–553.Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, HW Jr., Out, HJ, Hoomans, EHM, Driessen, GAJ, Coelingh Bennink, HJT (1997b) Cryopreservation: the practicalities of evaluation. Hum Reprod 12, 1522–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klemetti, R, Gissler, M, Hemminski, E (2002) Comparison of perinatal health of children born from IVF in Finland in the early and late 1990s. Hum Reprod 17, 2192–2198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kligman, I, Benadiva, C, Alikani, M, Munné, S (1996) The presence of multinucleated blastomeres in human embryos is correlated with chromosomal abnormalities. Hum Reprod 11, 1492–1498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Devroey, P (2002) Blastocyst culture: facts and fiction. Reprod Biomed Online 5, 285–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Zikopoulos, K, Verpoest, W, Joris, H, Steirteghem, AC, Devroey, P (2004) Should we advise patients undergoing IVF to start a cycle leading to a day 3 or a day 5 transfer?Hum Reprod. In press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koudstaal, J, Bruinse, HW, Helmerhorst, FM, Vermeiden, JPW, Willemsen, WNP, Visser, GHA (2000a) Obstetric outcome of twin pregnancies after in-vitro fertilization: a matched control study in four Dutch University hospitals. Hum Reprod 15, 935–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koudstaal, J, Braat, DDM, Bruinse, HW, Naaktgeboren, N, Vermeiden, JPW, Visser, GHA (2000b) Obstetric outcome of singleton pregnancies after in-vitro fertilization: a matched control study in four Dutch University hospitals. Hum Reprod 15, 1819–1825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledger, WL, Anumba, D, Marlow, N, Thomas, CM, Wilson, ECF; the Cost of Multiple Births Study Group (COMBS Group) (2006) The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. BJOG 113, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lukassen, HGM, Schönbeck, Y, Adang, EMM, Braat, DDM, Zielhuis, GA, Kremer, JAM (2004) Cost analysis of singleton versus twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 81, 1240–1246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, A, McDuffie, R Jr, Murphy, J, Faber, K, Orleans, M (2002) Preeclampsia in multiple gestation: the role of assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol 99, 445–451.Google ScholarPubMed
Martikainen, H, Tiitinen, A, Tomàs, C, Tapanainen, J, Orava, M, Tuomivaara, L, Vilska, S, Hydèn-Granskog, C, Hovatta, O, Finnish, (2001) One versus two embryo transfers after IVF and ICSI: randomized study. Hum Reprod 16, 1900–1903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, PM, Welch, HG (1998) Probabilities for singleton and multiple pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 70, 478–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milki, AA, Fisch, JD, Behr, B (1999) Two-blastocyst transfer has similar pregnancy rates and a decreased multiple gestation rate compared with three-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 72, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minaretzis, D, Harris, D, Alper, MM, Mortola, JF, Berger, MJ, Power, D (1998) Multivariate analysis of factors predictive of successful live births in in vitro fertilization (IVF) suggests strategies to improve IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 15, 365–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, S, Shetty, A, Rattray, A, Taylor, V, Bhattacharya, S (2004) A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 19, 911–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obasaju, M, Kadam, A, Biancardi, T, Sultan, K, Munné, S (2001) Pregnancies from single normal embryo transfer in women older than 40 years. Reprod BioMed Online 2, 98–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ombelet, W, Sutter, P, Elst, J, Martens, G (2005) Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: registration, reflection and reaction—the Belgian project. Hum Reprod Update 11, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostfeld, BM, Smith, RH, Hiatt, M, Hegyi, T (2000) Maternal behavior toward premature twins: implications for development. Twin Res 3, 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozturk, O, Bhattacharya, S, Templeton, A (2001) Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART. Evaluation and implementation of new strategies. Hum Reprod 16, 1319–1321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmstierna, M, Murkes, D, Cseminczky Andersson, O, Wramby, H (1998) Zona pellucida thickness variation and occurrence of visible mononucleated blastomeres in preembryos are associated with a high pregnancy rate in IVF treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet 15, 70–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandian, Z, Templeton, A, Serour, G, Bhattacharya, S. (2005) Number of embryos for transfer after IVF and ICSI: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 20, 2681–2687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, D'haeseleer, E, Verheyen, G, Velde, H, Camus, M, Steirteghem, A, Devroey, P, Tournaye, H (2005) Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod 20, 3198–3203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelinck, MJ, Vos, M, Dekens, M, Elst, J, Sutter, P, Dhont, M (1998) Embryos cultured in vitro with multinucleated blastomeres have poor implantation potential in human in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 13, 960–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelinck, MJ, Hoek, A, Simmons, AHM, Heineman, MJ (2002) Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod 8, 129–139.Google ScholarPubMed
Pennings, G (2000) Multiple pregnancies: a test case for the moral quality of medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 15, 2466–2469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, BJ, Taylor, A, Johnson, MH, Braude, PR (1995) An analysis of multinucleated blastomere formation in human embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 10, 1912–1922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinborg, A, Loft, A, Schmidt, L, Andersen, NA (2003) Attitudes of IVF/ICSI-twin mothers towards twins and single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 18, 621–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinborg, A, Lidegaard, Ø, Cour Freiesleben, N, Andersen, AN (2005) Consequences of vanishing twins in IVF/ICSI pregnancies. Hum Reprod 20, 2821–2829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pons, JC, Charlemaine, C, Dubreuil, E, Papiernik, E, Frydman, R (1998a) Management and outcome of triplet pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 76, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pons, JC, Suares, F, Duyme, M, Pourade, A, Vial, M, Papiernik, E, Frydman, R (1998b) Prévention de la prématurité au cours du suivi de 842 grossesses gémellaires consécutives. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 27, 319–328.Google Scholar
Reynolds, MA, Schieve, L, Jeng, G, Peterson, HB (2003) Does insurance coverage decrease the risk for multiple births associated with assisted reproductive technology?Fertil Steril 80, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rienzi, L, Ubaldi, F, Iacobelli, M, Ferrero, S, Minasi, MG, Martinez, F, Tesarik, J, Greco, E (2002) Day 3 embryo transfer with combined evaluation at the pronuclear and cleavage stages compares favourably with day 5 blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 17, 1852–1855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B, Aboulghar, MA, Mansour, RT, et al. (1991) Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: analytical study of twenty-one cases. Hum Reprod 6, S368–9.Google Scholar
Rizk, B, Davies, M, Kingsland, C, et al. (1989) How many embryos should be replaced in an in vitro fertilization programme?. 6th World Congress for In Vitro Fertilization and Alternate Conception Techniques. Jerusalem, Israel. Abstract Book, p. 97.Google Scholar
Roberston, JA (2004) Protecting embryos and burdening women: assisted reproduction in Italy. Hum Reprod 19, 1693–1696.Google Scholar
Roest, J, Heusden, AM, Verhoeff, A, Mous, HVH, Zeilmaker, GH (1997) A triplet pregnancy after in vitro fertilization is a procedure-related complication that should be prevented by replacement of two embryos only. Fertil Steril 67, 290–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roseboom, TJ, Vermeiden, JPW, Schoute, E, Lens, JW, Schats, R (1995) The probability of pregnancy after embryo transfer is affected by the age of the patient, cause of infertility, number of embryos transferred and the average morphology score, as revealed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Hum Reprod 10, 3035–3041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, GL, Voorhis, BJ (2004) The desire of infertile patients for multiple gestations—do they know the risks. Fertil Steril 81, 526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydhstroem, H, Heraib, F (2001) Gestational duration, and fetal and infant mortality for twins vs. singletons. Twin Res 4, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salumets, A, Hydén-Granskog, C, Mäkinen, S, Suikkari, A-M, Tiitinen, A, Tuuri, T (2003) Early cleavage predicts the viability of human embryos in elective single embryo transfer procedure. Hum Reprod 18, 821–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senat, M-V, Ancel, P-Y, Bouvier-Colle, M-H, Bréart, G (1998) How does multiple pregnancy affect maternal mortality and morbidity?Clin Obstet Gynaecol 41, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Harris, DC, Richter, KS (2000) Predictive value of 72-hour blastomere cell number on blastocyst development and success of subsequent transfer based on the degree of blastocyst development. Fertil Steril 73, 582–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Richter, KS, Harris, DC, Daneshmand, ST (2001) Dramatic declines in implantation and pregnancy rates in patients who undergo repeated cycles of in vitro fertilization with blastocyst transfer after one or more failed attempts. Fertil Steril 76, 538–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Söderström-Anttila, V, Vilska, S, Mäkinen, S, Foudila, T, Suikkari, AM (2003) Elective single embryo transfer yields good delivery rates in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 18, 1858–1863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staessen, C, Camus, M, Bollen, N, Devroey, P, Steirteghem, A (1992) The relationship between embryo quality and the occurrence of multiple pregnancies. Fertil Steril 57, 626–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staessen, C, Janssenswillen, C, Abbeel, E, Devroey, P, Steirteghem, A (1993) Avoidance of triplet pregnancies by elective transfer of two good quality embryos. Hum Reprod 8, 1650–1653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stillman, RJ, Richter, KS, Tucker, MJ, Kearns, WG, Widra, EA (2005) Preliminary experience with elective single embryo transfer (eSET). Fertil Steril 84(Suppl. 1), S81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandell, A, Bergh, C, Lundin, K (2000) Selection of patients suitable for one-embryo transfer may reduce the rate of multiple births by half without impairment of overall birth rates. Hum Reprod 15, 2520–2525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strömberg, B, Dahlquist, G, Ericson, A, Finnström, O, Köster, M, Stjernqvist, K (2002) Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilization: a population-based study. Lancet 359; 461–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svendsen, TO, Jones, D, Butler, L, Muasher, SJ (1996) The incidence of multiple gestations after in vitro fertilization is dependent on the number of embryos transferred and maternal age. Fertil Steril 65, 561–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, SL, Doyle, P, Campbell, S, et al. (1992) Obstetric outcome of in vitro fertilization pregnancies compared with normally conceived pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167(3), 778–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tasdemir, M, Tasdemir, I, Kodama, H, Fukuda, J, Tanaka, T (1995) Two instead of three embryo transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 10, 2155–2158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Templeton, A, Morris, JK (1996) Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilization treatment. Lancet 348, 1402–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Templeton, A, Morris, JK (1998) Reducing the risk of multiple birth by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 339, 573–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurin, A, Hausken, J, Hillensjö, T, Jablonowska, B, Pinborg, A, Strandell, A, Bergh, C (2004) Elective single embryo transfer in IVF, a randomized study. N Engl J Med 351, 2392–2402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiitinen, A, Halttunen, M, Härkki, P, Vuoristo, P, Hydén- Granskog, C (2001) Elective embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 16, 1140–1144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiitinen, A, Unkila-Kallio, L, Halttunen, M, Hydén-Granskog, C (2003) Impact of elective single embryo transfer on the twin pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod 18, 1449–1453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trimarchi, JR (2001) A mathematical model for predicting which embryos to transfer – an illusion of control or a powerful tool?Fertil Steril 76, 1286–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uchiyama, K, Aono, F, Kuwayama, M, Osada, H, Kato, O (2004) The efficacy of single embryo transfer with vitrification. Hum Reprod 19(Suppl. 1), i135.Google Scholar
Utsunomiya, T, Ito, H, Nagaki, M, Sato, J (2004) A prospective, randomized study: day 3 versus hatching blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 19, 1598–1603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montfoort, APA, Janssen, JM, Fiddelers, AAA, Derhaag, JG, Dirksen, CD, Evers, JLH, Dumoulin, JCM (2004) Single versus double embryo transfer: a randomized study. Hum Reprod 19(Suppl. 1), i134.Google Scholar
Montfoort, APA, Fiddelers, AAA, Janssen, JM, Derhaag, JG, Dirksen, CD, Dunselman, GAJ, Land, JA, Geraedts, JPM, Evers, JLH, Dumoulin, JCM (2006) In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 21, 338–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, Neubourg, D, Valkenburg, M, Meerssche, M, Ryckaert, G, Eestermans, W, Gerris, J (1999) Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 14, 2345–2349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, Neubourg, D, Laureys, I, Ryckaert, G, Gerris, J (2001) Calculating the implantation potential of day 3 embryos in women younger than 38 years of age: a new model. Hum Reprod 16, 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, Vercruyssen, M, Neubourg, D, Valkenburg, M, Ryckaert, G, Gerris, J (2003) Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 18, 1062–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vauthier-Brouzes, D, Lefebvre, G, Lessourd, S, Gonzales, J, Darbois, Y (1994) How many embryos should be transferred in in vitro fertilization? A prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 62, 339–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vilska, S, Tiitinen, A (2004) National experience with elective single-embryo transfer: Finland. In Gerris, J, Olivennes, F, Sutter, P (eds.) Assisted Reproduction Technologies. Quality and Safety. The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York, pp. 106–112.Google Scholar
Vilska, S, Tiitinen, A, Hydèn-Granskog, C, Hovatta, O (1999) Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Hum Reprod 14, 2392–2395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J, Lane, M, Norman, RJ (2006) Reducing multiple pregnancy from assisted reproduction treatment: educating patients and medical staff. Med J Aust 184, 180–181.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, JX, Norman, RJ, Kristiansson, P (2002) The effect of various infertility treatments on the risk of preterm birth. Hum Reprod 17, 945–949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wennerholm, UB (2004) Obstetric risks and neonatal complications of twin pregnancy and higher-order multiple pregnancy. In Gerris, J, Olivennes, F, Sutter, P (eds.) Assisted Reproduction Technologies. Quality and Safety. The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Wennerholm, UB, Bergh, C (2000) Obstetric outcome and follow-up of children born after in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Hum Reprod 3, 52–64.Google Scholar
Wennerholm, UB, Bergh, C (2004a,b) Outcome of IVF pregnancies. Fetal Maternal Med Rev 15, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wølner-Hanssen, P, Rydhstroem, H (1998) Cost-effectiveness analysis of in-vitro fertilization: estimated costs per successful pregnancy after transfer of one or two embryos. Hum Reprod 13, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziebe, S, Bangsbøll, S, Schmidt, KLT, Loft, A, Lindhard, A, Nyboe Andersen, A (2004) Embryo quality in natural versus stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 19, 1457–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×