Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on November 18, 2004
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh619
© 2004 by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Research Institute of Growth & Development (GROW), University of Maastricht and IVF-Laboratory, Maastricht, The Netherlands
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. BACKGROUND: Elective single embryo transfer (eSET), applied in the first or second IVF cycle in young patients with good quality embryos, has been demonstrated to lower the twin pregnancy rate, while the overall pregnancy rate is not compromised. It is as yet unclear whether eSET could be the preferred transfer policy in all treatment cycles, or that it should be restricted to the first or first two cycles. METHODS: eSET policy (when two or more embryos were available, at least one of them being of good quality) was offered to patients younger than 38 years in the first three treatment cycles. Retrospectively, treatment cycle outcome was studied. RESULTS: In 326 patients, 586 treatment cycles were performed (326 first, 168 second and 92 third treatment cycles). In 65 cycles (11%), eSET could not be applied because there was either no fertilization, or only one embryo available. In the remaining 521 cycles, eSET was performed in 111 cycles (19%), while in 410 cycles, no good quality embryo was available resulting in the transfer of two embryos (double embryo transfer, DET). No significant differences in ongoing pregnancy rates after transfer of fresh embryos were observed between eSET and DET in the first (both 33%), second (36 and 23%, respectively) and third treatment cycles (20 and 24%, respectively). In significantly more eSET cycles compared to DET cycles, could embryos be frozen. This resulted in a significantly higher cumulative pregnancy rate after eSET compared to DET. CONCLUSIONS: In patients younger than 38 years with at least one top quality embryo, eSET can be the transfer policy of choice in at least the first three treatment cycles, since the pregnancy rates obtained in each treatment cycle are comparable to those after DET.
Revised September 2, 2004
Accepted October 22, 2004
Article
Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy in the first three IVF/ICSI treatment cycles
2 Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Academic Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Aafke P.A. van Montfoort, E-mail: avmn{at}sgyn.azm.nl
Abstract 
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. P.A. van Montfoort, J. P.M. Geraedts, J. C.M. Dumoulin, A. P.M. Stassen, J. L.H. Evers, and T. A.Y. Ayoubi Differential gene expression in cumulus cells as a prognostic indicator of embryo viability: a microarray analysis Mol. Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2008; 14(3): 157 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Gook and D. H. Edgar Human oocyte cryopreservation Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2007; 13(6): 591 - 605. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. P.A. van Montfoort, A. A.A. Fiddelers, J. A. Land, C. D. Dirksen, J. L. Severens, J. P.M. Geraedts, J. L.H. Evers, and J. C.M. Dumoulin eSET irrespective of the availability of a good-quality embryo in the first cycle only is not effective in reducing overall twin pregnancy rates Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1669 - 1674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Donoso, W. Verpoest, E.G. Papanikolaou, I. Liebaers, H.M. Fatemi, K. Sermon, C. Staessen, J. Van der Elst, and P. Devroey Single embryo transfer in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles for women <36 years does not reduce delivery rate Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 1021 - 1025. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|