Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 1059–1066 | Cite as

Contribution of cryopreservation in a mandatory SET policy: analysis of 5 years of application of law in an academic IVF center

  • Yaacoub Salame
  • Fabienne Devreker
  • Romain Imbert
  • Anne Delbaere
  • Nicolas Fontenelle
  • Yvon Englert
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Objective

To analyse treatment outcomes after SET law enforcement and to evaluate the contribution of cryopreservation in a SET policy.

Material

Embryo transfer cycles performed after the law enforcement (SET period) was retrospectively compared to the cycles performed before the law enforcement (DET period).

Results

Pregnancy and delivery rates after fresh transfer of SET and DET periods were comparable (31.7% versus 33.3% and 24.5% versus 26.2%, respectively, NS). Overall twin delivery rate is significantly decreased after the law enforcement (11.3% versus 22.4%, p < 0.001) but not in patients aged 36 to 39 years (20.3% versus 24%, NS). Frozen-thawed embryo cycles allowed similar cumulative pregnancy rate (30.6%, NS). Taking into account all frozen embryos still to be transferred, SET period offers a better overall pregnancy rate than the DET period (36.1% versus 32.3%, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The Belgian law allowed a dramatic reduction of twin deliveries especially for patients under 36 years. Cryopreservation maintains a similar cumulative pregnancy rate.

Keywords

Single embryo transfer Twin pregnancies Cryopreservation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Multiple gestation pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(8):1856–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen AN, Goossens V, Ferraretti AP, Bhattacharya S, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:756–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Land JA, Evers JL. Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:455–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laruelle C, Englert Y. Psychological study of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer participants’ attitudes toward the destiny of their supernumerary embryos. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1047–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newton CR, Mc Bride J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Power S. Factors affecting patients’s attitudes toward single and multiple-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:269–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vilska S, Tiitinen A, Hyden-Granskog C, Hovatta O. Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptabe pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2392–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in IVF or ICSI based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2581–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dhont M. Single embryo transfer. Semin Reprod Med. 2001;19:251–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Surrey E, Gardner DK, Stevens J, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst stage after in vitro fertilization (IVF): a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2002;78 Suppl 1:S42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Vercuyssen M, Barudy-Vasquez J. Elective single day 3 embryo transfer halves the twinning rate without decrease in the ongoing pregnancy rate of an IVF/ICSI programme. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2626–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marek D, Langley M, Nackley AC, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Elective single embryo transfer in fresh cycles. Fertil Steril. 2002;78 Suppl 1:S48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marek D, Langley M, Nackley AC, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Frozen embryo transfer of single blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2002;78 Suppl 1:S132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovacs G, MacLachlan V, Rombauts L, Healy D, Howlett D. Replacement of one selected embryo is just as successful as two embryo transfer, without the risk of twin pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;43:369–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Tomas C, et al. One versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomised study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1900–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tiitinen A, Haltunen M, Harkki P. Elective single-embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Human Reprod. 2001;16:1140–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veleva Z, Karinen P, Tomas C, Tapanainen J, Martikainen H. Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI. Human Reprod. 2009;24:1632–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Devreker F, Emiliani S, Revelard Ph, Van den Bergh M, Govaerts I, Englert Y. Comparison of two elective transfer policies of two embryos to reduce multiple prenancies without impairing pregnancy rates. Human Reprod. 1999;14:83–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 1987;2:705–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veleva Z, Vilska S, Hyden-granskog C, Tiitinen A, Tapanaienen JS, Martikainen H. Elective single embryo transfer in women aged 36–39 years. Hum Reprod. 2006;2:2098–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J med. 2004;351:2392–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertile Steril. 2004;81:551–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, Zielhius GA, Adang EM, Scheenjes E, et al. Two cycles with Single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:702–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts SA, McGowan L, Mark Hirst W, Vail A, Rutherford A, Lieberman BA, et al. The toward SET collaboration. Reducing the incidence of twins from IVF treatments: predictive modelling from a retrospective cohort. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(3):569–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Montfoort AP, Fiddelers AA, Janssen JM, Derhaag JG, Dirksen CD, Dunselman GA, et al. 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. 2006;21:338–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, de Neubourg D, Dumoulin JC, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:6945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaacoub Salame
    • 1
  • Fabienne Devreker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Romain Imbert
    • 1
  • Anne Delbaere
    • 1
  • Nicolas Fontenelle
    • 2
  • Yvon Englert
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Fertility Clinic, department obstetrics/gynecology, hôpital ErasmeUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Research laboratory on Human Reproduction, medicine facultyUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations