Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on December 23, 2004
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh672
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/3/702    most recent
deh672v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marieke Lukassen, H.G.
Right arrow Articles by Kremer, J. A.M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marieke Lukassen, H.G.
Right arrow Articles by Kremer, J. A.M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction © European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2004; all rights reserved
Received September 1, 2004
Accepted November 25, 2004

Article

Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial

H.G. Marieke Lukassen 1*, Didi D.M.Braat 1, Alex M.M. Wetzels 1, Gerhard A. Zielhuis 2, Eddy M.M. Adang 3, Eduard Scheenjes 4, and Jan A.M. Kremer 1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3 Department of Medical Technology Assessment, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gelderse Vallei Ziekenhuis, Willy Brandtlaan 10, 6716 RP, Ede, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
H.G. Marieke Lukassen, E-mail: m.lukassen{at}obgyn.umcn.nl


  Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the aim of reducing the number of multiple pregnancies after IVF we investigated the effectiveness of two cycles with single embryo transfer (SET) and one cycle with double embryo transfer (DET) after IVF and calculated the cost-effectiveness of both strategies. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was performed in 107 women, aged <35 years, in their first IVF cycle, with at least one good quality embryo. They were randomized to the SET (n=54) or DET (n=53) group using a computer-generated random block number table, stratified for primary or secondary infertility. RESULTS: The cumulative live birth rates per woman randomized of two consecutive cycles of SET [41%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 27-54] versus one cycle of DET (36%; 95% CI 23-49) were comparable, whereas the multiple pregnancy rate was significantly higher: 37% (95% CI 15-59) in the DET and 0% in the in the SET group (P=0.002). Combining the medical costs of the IVF treatments (where 1.5 more SET cycles were required to achieve each live birth) and of pregnancies up to 6 weeks after delivery, the total medical costs of DET per live birth were 13 680 and 13 438 for SET. CONCLUSIONS: Two cycles with SET were equally effective as one cycle with DET, and the medical costs per live birth up to 6 weeks after delivery were the same. However, if lifetime costs for severe handicaps are included, more than 7000 per live birth will be saved after implementing SET. Because of the high probability of multiple pregnancies in this group of IVF patients, only SET should be performed.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; IVF; randomized controlled trial; single embryo transfer; twin pregnancy.
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
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
P. Devroey, B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR)
Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2009; 15(4): 391 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A.M. van Peperstraten, W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.P.M.G Hermens, L. Jansen, E. Scheenjes, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer
Why don't we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2036 - 2042.
[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
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. C. Magli, E. Van den Abbeel, K. Lundin, D. Royere, J. Van der Elst, L. Gianaroli, and for Committee of the Special Interest Group on Emb
Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2008; 23(6): 1253 - 1262.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in 2006: Evidence and Evolution
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2007; 13(6): 515 - 526.
[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
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

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
 NEJMHome page
B. J. Van Voorhis
In Vitro Fertilization
N. Engl. J. Med., January 25, 2007; 356(4): 379 - 386.
[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
M. van Wely, M. Twisk, B.W. Mol, and F. van der Veen
Is twin pregnancy necessarily an adverse outcome of assisted reproductive technologies?
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2736 - 2738.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

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
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]

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
C. de Klerk, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, H.J. Duivenvoorden, B.C.J.M. Fauser, J. Passchier, and J.A.M. Hunfeld
The psychological impact of mild ovarian stimulation combined with single embryo transfer compared with conventional IVF
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2006; 21(3): 721 - 727.
[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 ReprodHome page
J. X. Wang
Life table (survival) analysis to generate cumulative pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction: an alternative method of calculating the cumulative pregnancy rate in assisted reproduction technology
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2006; 21(1): 1 - 2.
[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.