Human Reproduction, Vol. 17, No. 10, 2626-2631,
October 2002
© 2002 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Elective single day 3 embryo transfer halves the twinning rate without decrease in the ongoing pregnancy rate of an IVF/ICSI programme
Center for Reproductive Medicine, Middelheim Hospital, Lindendreef 1, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium
BACKGROUND: Data on the effect of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) on the total and multiple pregnancy rates of an IVF/ICSI programme are reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort analysis of eSET was carried out over a 4 year period. A total of 1559 cycles resulted in 1464 transfers; 299 transfers of one top quality embryo (20.4%) and 86 of one non-top quality embryo (5.9%) yielded 149 conceptions (49.8%) with 105 ongoing pregnancies (35.1%) and 26 conceptions (30.2%) with 19 ongoing implantations (22.1%) respectively; 1079 transfers of two (n = 853; 58.3%) or more than two (n = 226; 15.4%) embryos yielded 366 ongoing pregnancies (33.9%). The ongoing pregnancy rates for the years between 1998 and 2001 were 35.9, 27.9, 31.9 and 31.0% per oocyte retrieval and 38.5, 29.4, 34.1 and 33.2% per transfer. There were no differences in pregnancy rates between any of the years. The average ongoing pregnancy rate (>12 weeks) over the 4 years was 31.5% per started cycle and 33.5% per transfer; the average number of embryos transferred decreased from 2.26 (1998) to 1.79 (2001); the multiple pregnancy and twinning rates dropped from 33.6 and 29.5% (1998) to 18.6 and 16.3% (2001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Judicious application of eSET can halve the twinning rate while maintaining the overall pregnancy rate.
Key words: elective single embryo transfer/twin pregnancy prevention
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jan.gerris{at}ocmw.antwerpen.be
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Bechoua, K. Astruc, S. Thouvenot, S. Girod, A. Chiron, C. Jimenez, and P. Sagot How to demonstrate that eSET does not compromise the likelihood of having a baby? Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2009; 24(12): 3073 - 3081. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. El-Toukhy, A. Kamal, E. Wharf, J. Grace, V. Bolton, Y. Khalaf, and P. Braude Reduction of the multiple pregnancy rate in a preimplantation genetic diagnosis programme after introduction of single blastocyst transfer and cryopreservation of blastocysts biopsied on Day 3 Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2009; 24(10): 2642 - 2648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.M. van Peperstraten, R.P.M.G. Hermens, W.L.D.M. Nelen, P.F.M. Stalmeier, G.J. Scheffer, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer Perceived barriers to elective single embryo transfer among IVF professionals: a national survey Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2718 - 2723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Bettegowda, O. V. Patel, K.-B. Lee, K.-E. Park, M. Salem, J. Yao, J. J. Ireland, and G. W. Smith Identification of Novel Bovine Cumulus Cell Molecular Markers Predictive of Oocyte Competence: Functional and Diagnostic Implications Biol Reprod, August 1, 2008; 79(2): 301 - 309. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Gleicher and D. Barad The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2006; 21(6): 1337 - 1344. [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. 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Matorras, F. Matorras, R. Mendoza, M. Rodriguez, J. Remohi, F. J. Rodriguez-Escudero, and C. Simon The implantation of every embryo facilitates the chances of the remaining embryos to implant in an IVF programme: a mathematical model to predict pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2005; 20(10): 2923 - 2931. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Porter, and S. Bhattacharya Investigation of staff and patients' opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2005; 20(9): 2523 - 2530. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Germond, F. Urner, A. Chanson, M.-P. Primi, D. Wirthner, and A. Senn What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The cumulated singleton/twin delivery rates per oocyte pick-up: the CUSIDERA and CUTWIDERA Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2442 - 2444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. P.A. Van Montfoort, J. C.M. Dumoulin, A. D.M. Kester, and J. L.H. Evers Early cleavage is a valuable addition to existing embryo selection parameters: a study using single embryo transfers Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 2103 - 2108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. K. Min, S. A. Breheny, V. MacLachlan, and D. L. Healy What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2004; 19(1): 3 - 7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Tiitinen, L. Unkila-Kallio, M. Halttunen, and C. Hyden-Granskog Impact of elective single embryo transfer on the twin pregnancy rate Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2003; 18(7): 1449 - 1453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|