Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (62)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tiitinen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hyden-Granskog, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tiitinen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hyden-Granskog, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 7, 1449-1453, July 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Impact of elective single embryo transfer on the twin pregnancy rate

A. Tiitinen1, L. Unkila-Kallio, M. Halttunen and C. Hyden-Granskog

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, P.O.Box 140, 00029 HUS, Finland

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: aila.tiitinen{at}hus.fi

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how the implementation of elective single embryo transfer in clinical practice would affect clinical pregnancy and delivery rates and multiple birth rates. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed 1871 IVF/ICSI cycles carried out from 1997 to 2001 in the IVF programme of a single university infertility clinic. RESULTS: The number of elective single embryo transfers increased from 11 to 56%. At the same time the clinical pregnancy rate was relatively stable; mean 34.0% (range 28–42). The number of embryos per embryo transfer decreased from 1.8 to 1.3. The multiple pregnancy and delivery rates dropped markedly from 25 to 7.5% and from 25 to 5% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An elective single embryo transfer programme can be adopted in daily practice that decreases the twinning rate to <10% and does not affect the overall pregnancy rate.

Key words: assisted reproductive technology/multiple pregnancy/single embryo transfer


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
F. Guerif, M. Lemseffer, R. Bidault, O. Gasnier, M.H. Saussereau, V. Cadoret, C. Jamet, and D. Royere
Single Day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2009; 24(5): 1051 - 1058.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
W. Ombelet, I. Cooke, S. Dyer, G. Serour, and P. Devroey
Infertility and the provision of infertility medical services in developing countries
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2008; 14(6): 605 - 621.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M.J. Pelinck, H.M. Knol, N.E.A. Vogel, E.G.J.M. Arts, A.H.M. Simons, M.J. Heineman, and A. Hoek
Cumulative pregnancy rates after sequential treatment with modified natural cycle IVF followed by IVF with controlled ovarian stimulation
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1808 - 1814.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Obstetrician and GynaecologistHome page
I. Kosmas, J. Van der Elst, P. Devroey, and H. Tournaye
Elective single embryo transfer
Obstet Gynaecol (Lond), July 1, 2008; 10(3): 163 - 169.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ESHRE MonogrHome page
P. De Sutter, J. Gerris, and M. Dhont
Assisted reproductive technologies: how to minimize the risks and complications in developing countries?
ESHRE Monogr, July 1, 2008; 2008(1): 73 - 76.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
G. M. Chambers, M. G. Chapman, N. Grayson, M. Shanahan, and E. A. Sullivan
Babies born after ART treatment cost more than non-ART babies: a cost analysis of inpatient birth-admission costs of singleton and multiple gestation pregnancies
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2007; 22(12): 3108 - 3115.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P.O. Karlstrom and C. Bergh
Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden-impact on delivery and multiple birth rates
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2007; 22(8): 2202 - 2207.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. Poikkeus, M. Gissler, L. Unkila-Kallio, C. Hyden-Granskog, and A. Tiitinen
Obstetric and neonatal outcome after single embryo transfer
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 1073 - 1079.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
R. J. Stillman
A 47-Year-Old Woman With Fertility Problems Who Desires a Multiple Pregnancy
JAMA, February 28, 2007; 297(8): 858 - 867.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
A.A.A. Fiddelers, J.L. Severens, C.D. Dirksen, J.C.M. Dumoulin, J.A. Land, and J.L.H. Evers
Economic evaluations of single- versus double-embryo transfer in IVF
Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 5 - 13.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. De Sutter, I. Delbaere, J. Gerris, H. Verstraelen, S. Goetgeluk, J. Van der Elst, M. Temmerman, and M. Dhont
Birthweight of singletons after assisted reproduction is higher after single- than after double-embryo transfer
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2006; 21(10): 2633 - 2637.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. P.A. van Montfoort, J. L.H. Evers, and J. C.M. Dumoulin
Reply: In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared to double embryo transfer.
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2006; 21(8): 2195 - 2196.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
Z. Veleva, S. Vilska, C. Hyden-Granskog, A. Tiitinen, J. S. Tapanainen, and H. Martikainen
Elective single embryo transfer in women aged 36-39 years
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2006; 21(8): 2098 - 2102.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
R. Tang, J. Catt, and D. Howlett
Towards defining parameters for a successful single embryo transfer in frozen cycles
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2006; 21(5): 1179 - 1183.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
D. De Neubourg and J. Gerris
What about the remaining twins since single-embryo transfer? How far can (should) we go?
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2006; 21(4): 843 - 846.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. P.A. van Montfoort, A. A.A. Fiddelers, J.M. Janssen, J. G. Derhaag, C. D. Dirksen, G. A.J. Dunselman, J. A. Land, J. P.M. Geraedts, J. L.H. Evers, and J. C.M. Dumoulin
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., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 338 - 343.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
A. Pinborg
IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2005; 11(6): 575 - 593.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. Hyden-Granskog, L. Unkila-Kallio, M. Halttunen, and A. Tiitinen
Single embryo transfer is an option in frozen embryo transfer
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2005; 20(10): 2935 - 2938.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
B. Kallen, O. Finnstrom, K. G. Nygren, and P. O. Olausson
Temporal trends in multiple births after in vitro fertilisation in Sweden, 1982-2001: a register study
BMJ, August 13, 2005; 331(7513): 382 - 383.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Pakkila, J. Rasanen, S. Heinonen, H. Tinkanen, L. Tuomivaara, K. Makikallio, M. Hippelainen, J.S. Tapanainen, and H. Martikainen
Low-dose aspirin does not improve ovarian responsiveness or pregnancy rate in IVF and ICSI patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2005; 20(8): 2211 - 2214.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M.J. Pelinck, N.E.A. Vogel, A. Hoek, E.G.J.M. Arts, A.H.M. Simons, and M.J. Heineman
Minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and concomitant substitution with recombinant FSH: a pilot study
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 642 - 648.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
J. M.R. Gerris
Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisal
Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2005; 11(2): 105 - 121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. P.A. van Montfoort, J. C.M. Dumoulin, J. A. Land, E. Coonen, J. G. Derhaag, and J. L.H. Evers
Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy in the first three IVF/ICSI treatment cycles
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2005; 20(2): 433 - 436.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. Bergh
Single embryo transfer: a mini-review
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2005; 20(2): 323 - 327.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. Saldeen and P. Sundstrom
Would legislation imposing single embryo transfer be a feasible way to reduce the rate of multiple pregnancies after IVF treatment?
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 4 - 8.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
W. Ombelet, P. De Sutter, J. Van der Elst, and G. Martens
Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: registration, reflection and reaction--the Belgian project
Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2005; 11(1): 3 - 14.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
A. Thurin, J. Hausken, T. Hillensjo, B. Jablonowska, A. Pinborg, A. Strandell, and C. Bergh
Elective Single-Embryo Transfer versus Double-Embryo Transfer in in Vitro Fertilization
N. Engl. J. Med., December 2, 2004; 351(23): 2392 - 2402.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A. Pinborg, A. Loft, S. Rasmussen, and A. Nyboe Andersen
Hospital care utilization of IVF/ICSI twins followed until 2-7 years of age: a controlled Danish national cohort study
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2529 - 2536.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
I. E. Messinis and E. Domali
What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Should BESST really be the primary endpoint for assisted reproduction?
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1933 - 1935.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
U.B. Wennerholm and C. Bergh
What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Singleton live births should also include preterm births
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1943 - 1945.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
H. Martikainen, M. Orava, J. Lakkakorpi, and L. Tuomivaara
Day 2 elective single embryo transfer in clinical practice: better outcome in ICSI cycles
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2004; 19(6): 1364 - 1366.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
J. A. Land and J. L.H. Evers
What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Defining outcome in ART: a Gordian knot of safety, efficacy and quality
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2004; 19(5): 1046 - 1048.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
W. Buckett and S. L. Tan
What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The importance of informed choice
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2004; 19(5): 1043 - 1045.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
D.A. Blake, M. Proctor, and N.P. Johnson
The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 795 - 807.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
J. Gerris, P. De Sutter, D. De Neubourg, E. Van Royen, J. Vander Elst, K. Mangelschots, M. Vercruyssen, P. Kok, M. Elseviers, L. Annemans, et al.
A real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 917 - 923.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.