Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:15:42.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Minimizing Multiple Pregnancy After Assisted Reproductive Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2017

By
Jan Gerris
Edited by
Botros Rizk  and
Jan Gerris
Botros Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Jan Gerris
Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Complications and Outcomes of Assisted Reproduction , pp. 33 - 45
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gerris, J. Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11: 105–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleicher, N, Barad, D. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2426–2431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maheshwari, A, Griffiths, S, Bhattacharya, S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 107–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianaroli, L, Racowsky, C, Geraerdts, J, et al. Best practices of ASRM and ESHRE: a journey through reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 3365–3379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kupka, M S, Ferraretti, A P, de Mouzon, J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2014; 29: 2099–2113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinborg, A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11: 575–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLernon, D J, Harrild, K, Bergh, C, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Br Med J 2010; 341: c6945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, D, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T, Schoolcraft, W. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer? Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1155–1158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 825–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 835–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, M L, Boulet, S, Kissin, D, Warner, L, Jamieson, D J. Elective single embryo transfer trends and predictors of a good perinatal outcome – United States 1999 to 2010. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1937–1943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, B, Brown, M B, Grainger, D A, et al. Practice patterns and outcomes with the use of single embryo transfer in the United States. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 490–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kresowik, J D, Sparks, A E, Van Voorhis, B J. Clinical factors associated with live birth after single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1152–1156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerris, J, De Neubourg, D, Van Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, Valkenburg, M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after IVF/ICSI based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2581–2587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerris, J, De Neubourg, D, Mangelschots, K, et al. Elective single day 3 embryo transfer halves the multiple pregnancy rate without decrease in the total multiple pregnancy rates of an IVF/ICSI programme. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2626–2631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Neubourg, D, Bogaerts, K, Wyns, C, et al. The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 2709–2719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurin, A, Hausken, J, Hillensjö, T, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in-vitro fertilization. New Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2392–2402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veleva, Z, Karinen, P, Tomas, C, Tapanainen, JS, Martikainen, H. Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 1632–1639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Min, J K, Hughes, E, Young, D, et al. Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milne, P, Cottell, E, Allen, C, et al. Reducing twin pregnancy rates after IVF – elective single embryo transfer (eSET). Ir Med J 2010; 103: 9–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Gremeau, A S, Brugnon, F, Bouraoui, F, et al. Outcome of elective single or double embryo transfer in first and second IVF/ICSI cycles. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2011; 39: 70–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, G M, Illingworth, P J, Sullivan, E A. Assisted reproductive technology: public fundng and the voluntary shift in single embryo transfer in Australia. Med J Austral 2011; 195: 594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zander-Fox, D L, Tremellen, K, Lane, M. Single blastocyst embryo transfer maintains comparable pregnancy rates to double cleavage-stage embryo transfer but results in healthier pregnancy outcomes. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 51: 406–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasekova, V, Mardesic, T, Voboril, J, Vilimova, S, Jelinkova, V. Single embryo transfer – possibilities and limits. Ceska Gynekol 2011; 76: 397–400.Google Scholar
Béraud, E, Brugnon, F, Gremeau, A S, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in ART with large SET procedures over the period 2001–2010. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2013; 41: 20–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velez, M P, Kadoch, I J, Phillips, S J, Bissonnette, F. Rapid policy change to single-embryo transfer while maintaining pregnancy rates per initiated cycle. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26: 506–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, G M, Wang, Y A, Chapman, M G et al. What can we learn from a decade of promoting safe embryo transfer practices? A comparative analysis of policies and outcomes in the UK and Australia. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 1679–1686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutting, R, Morroll, D, Roberts, S A, et al. Elective single embryo transfer: guidelines for practice British Fertility Society and Association of Clinical Embryologists. BFS Policy Practice Iss 2008; 11: 131–146.Google Scholar
Wang, Y A, Sullivan, E A, Healy, D L, Black, D A. Perinatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology treatment in Australia and New Zealand: single versus double embryo transfer. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 234–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connolly, M P, Hoorens, S, Chambers, G M, et al. The cost and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16: 603–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastu, E, Celik, C, Keskin, G, Buyru, F. Evaluation of embryo transfer time (day 2 vs. day 3) after imposed single embryo transfer legislation: when to transfer? J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 33: 387–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadasivam, N, Sadasivam, N M. Selective single blastocyst transfer study: 604 cases in 6 years. J Hum Reprod Sci 2008; 1: 10–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, K L, Zhao, H B, Liu, H, et al. Elective single blastocyst transfer is more suitable for normal responders than for high responders. Chin Med J (Engl) 2013; 126: 2125–2128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Loendersloot, L, van Wely, M, Goddijn, M, et al. Pregnancy and twinning rates using a tailored embryo transfer policy. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26: 462–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niinimäki, M, Suikkari, A-M, Mäkinen, S, Söderström-Anttila, V, Martikainen, H. Elective single-embryo transfer in women aged 40–44 years. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 331–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, D K, Surrey, E, Minjarez, D, et al. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 551–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, J, Coonen, E, De Rycke, M, et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium steering committee. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 821–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkegaard, K, Agerholm, I E, Ingerslev, H J. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 1277–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrero, J, Meseguer, M. Selection of high potential embryos using time-lapse imaging: the era of morphokinetics. The Embryo 2013; 99: 1030–1034.Google ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A, de los Santos, M, Castello, D, et al. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1138–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glujovski, D, Blake, D, Bardach, A, Farquhar, C. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; (6): CD002118.Google Scholar
Ahlström, A, Westin, C, Reismer, E, Wikland, M, Hardarson, T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 3289–3296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, M, Richter, K, Heitmann, R, Graham, J. Trophectoderm grade predicts outcomes of single-blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1283–1289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Abbeel, E, Balaban, B, Ziebe, S, et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. RBM Online 2013, 27: 353–361.Google ScholarPubMed
Griesinger, G, von Otte, S, Schroer, A, et al. Elective cryopreservation of all pronuclear oocytes after GnRH agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in patients at risk of developing OHSS: a prospective, observational proof-of-concept study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1348–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, E, Labarta, E, Crespo, J, et al. Circulating progesterone levels and ongoing pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles for in vitro fertilization: analysis of over 4000 cycles. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 2092–2100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vaerenbergh, I, Fatemi, H M, Blockeel, C, et al. Progesterone rise on HCG day in GnRH antagonist/FSH stimulated cycles affects endometrial gene expression. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 22: 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×