Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on February 27, 2004
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 4, 917-923,
April 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
A real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles
1 Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Middelheim Hospital, Lindendreef 1, 2020 Antwerp, 2 Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, 3 Department of Biomedical Statistics, Antwerp University, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650 Edegem and 4 Department of Public Health, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
5 To whom correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: jan.gerris{at}ocmw.antwerpen.be
BACKGROUND: We analysed the difference in maternal, neonatal and total costs after single (SET) versus double day 3 embryo transfer (DET). METHODS: We performed a two-centre prospective study of women in their first IVF/ICSI cycle choosing between SET or DET. Infertility treatment data were gathered from a database; maternal and neonatal outcome data from a case report form (CRF); health economic data from medical acts registered in the CRF for the outpatient part and from hospital bills. SET was performed in 206/367 (56.1%) and DET in 161/367 (43.9%) women. RESULTS: In all, 367 transfers yielded 186 positive pregnancy tests, 148 ongoing pregnancies and 136 live deliveries (50.7, 40.3 and 37.1% per embryo transfer) of which 15 (11.0%) were twins. Live birth rate was 37.4% for SET, 36.6% for DET. Intention-to-treat analysis showed differences for: duration of pregnancy (SET: 39.0 ± 1.4 versus DET: 38.3 ± 2.2 weeks; P = 0.055), percentage prematurity (8.5 versus 23.8%; P = 0.033), percentage of neonates hospitalized (5.7 versus 17.9%; P = 0.121) and duration of neonatal hospitalization (6.3 ± 2.2 versus 10.3 ± 10.1 days; P = 0.01). Total cost after DET was higher (SET: 
4700 ± 3239 versus DET: 8613 ± 10 105; P = 0.105), due to significantly higher neonatal costs (451 ± 957 versus 3453 ± 8154; P < 0.001) and not to differences in maternal costs (4250 ± 2882 versus 5160 ± 4106; P = 0.152). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective health economic study shows that transfer of a single top quality embryo is equally effective as, but substantially cheaper than, double embryo transfer in women <38 years of age in their first IVF/ICSI cycle.
Key words: assisted reproductive technology/health economic analysis/single embryo transfer/single versus two-embryo transfer
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. A.A. Fiddelers, C. D. Dirksen, J. C.M. Dumoulin, A. P.A. van Montfoort, J. A. Land, J. M. Janssen, J. L.H. Evers, and J. L. Severens Cost-effectiveness of seven IVF strategies: results of a Markov decision-analytic model Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 1648 - 1655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. Veleva, P. Karinen, C. Tomas, J. S. Tapanainen, and H. Martikainen Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 1632 - 1639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Ledee, R. Lombroso, L. Lombardelli, J. Selva, S. Dubanchet, G. Chaouat, F. Frankenne, J.M. Foidart, E. Maggi, S. Romagnani, et al. Cytokines and chemokines in follicular fluids and potential of the corresponding embryo: the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2001 - 2009. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.G. Vergouw, L.L. Botros, P. Roos, J.W. Lens, R. Schats, P.G.A. Hompes, D.H. Burns, and C.B Lambalk Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non-invasive method for embryo selection Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2008; 23(7): 1499 - 1504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Polinder, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, J.D.F. Habbema, B.J.C.M. Fauser, and M.J.C. Eijkemans Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 23(2): 316 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. B. Sheehan, M. Lane, and D. K. Gardner The CryoLoop facilitates re-vitrification of embryos at four successive stages of development without impairing embryo growth Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2978 - 2984. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A.A. Fiddelers, A. P.A. van Montfoort, C. D. Dirksen, J. C.M. Dumoulin, J. A. Land, G. A.J. Dunselman, J.M. Janssen, J. L. Severens, and J. L.H. Evers Single versus double embryo transfer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2006; 21(8): 2090 - 2097. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.K. Ludwig, A. Katalinic, V. Steinbicker, K. Diedrich, and M. Ludwig Antenatal care in singleton pregnancies after ICSI as compared to spontaneous conception: data from a prospective controlled cohort study in Germany Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2006; 21(3): 713 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J.C. Eijkemans, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, C. de Klerk, J.D.F. Habbema, and B.C.J.M. Fauser Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 344 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Pinborg IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2005; 11(6): 575 - 593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.G.M. Lukassen, D. D.Braat, A. M.M. Wetzels, G. A. Zielhuis, E. M.M. Adang, E. Scheenjes, and J. A.M. Kremer Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 702 - 708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Bergh Single embryo transfer: a mini-review Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2005; 20(2): 323 - 327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. N. Barri Multiple pregnancies: a plea for informed caution Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2005; 11(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Koivurova, A.-L. Hartikainen, M. Gissler, E. Hemminki, R. Klemetti, and M.-R. Jarvelin Health care costs resulting from IVF: prenatal and neonatal periods Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2004; 19(12): 2798 - 2805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Tiitinen, C. Hyden-Granskog, and M. Gissler What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The value of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy rates per single oocyte retrieval should not be forgotten Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2439 - 2441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, and B.C.J.M. Fauser What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1936 - 1938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|