Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cumulative live birth rate after two single frozen embryo transfers (eSFET) versus a double frozen embryo transfer (DFET) with cleavage stage embryos: a retrospective cohort study

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

According to the latest ART report for Europe, about 13 % of pregnancies after frozen embryo transfer are multiple. Our objective was to analyse the impact on the multiple pregnancy rate of two eSFET (elective single frozen embryo transfers) versus a DFET (double frozen embryo transfer) in women aged under 38 years, who had not achieved pregnancy in their fresh transfer and who had at least two vitrified embryos of A/B quality.

Methods

This study was conducted from January 2010 to June 2013 at a public hospital. The couples were divided into three groups. Group DFET: the first cryotransfer of two embryos (105 women); cSFET group: the only cryotransfer of a single vitrified embryo (60 women); eSFET group, individually vitrified embryos: 20 patients included in a clinical trial of single-embryo fresh and frozen transfer and 21 patients who chose to receive eSFET.

Results

The clinical pregnancy rate was 38.1 % in the DET group and the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was 43.3 % in the eSFET group. There were no significant differences between the DFET and eSFET groups (30.0 vs 34.1 %) in cumulative live birth delivery rate. The rate of multiple pregnancies varied significantly between the DFET and eSFET groups (32.5 vs 0 %, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

For good-prognosis women aged under 38 years, taking embryo quality as a criterion for inclusion, an eSFET policy can be applied, achieving acceptable cumulative clinical pregnancy and live birth rates and reducing multiple pregnancy rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cobo A, Santos MJ D l, Castellò D, Gámiz P, Campos P, Remohí J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1138–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu SY, Teng B, Fu J, Li X, Zheng Y, Sun XX. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes after transfer of vitrified early cleavage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2093–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Absalan F, Ghannadi A, Kazerooni M. Reproductive outcome following thawed embryo transfer in management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. J Reprod Infertil. 2013;14:133–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Decleer W, Osmanagaoglu K, Meganck G, Devroey P. Slightly lower incidence of ectopic pregnancies in frozen embryo transfer cycles versus fresh in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:163–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Prados F, De los Santos MJ, Cabello Y, Buxaderas R, Segura A, Hernández J, et al. [Internet] Registro de la Sociedad Española de Fertilidad: Tecnicas de reproducción asistida (IA y FIV/ICSI). Año2.010. Available at: https://www.registrosef.com/public/Docs/sef2010_IAFIV.pdf

  6. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Kupka M, Bhattacharya S, de Mouzon J, Castilla JA, et al. The european ivf-monitoring (EIM) Consortium, for The european society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2318–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mc Lernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, de Neubourg D, Dumoilin JCM, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010:341.

  8. Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour G, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. 2013;7. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

  9. Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Tomás C, Tapanainen J, Orava M, Tuomivaara L, et al. One versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1900–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rodríguez DB, Tur R, Mancini F, Parriego M, Rodríguez I, Barri PN, et al. Elective single embryo transfer and cumulative pregnancy rate: five-year experience in a Southern European Country. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012;28:425–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ardoy M, Calderón G, Cuadros J, Figueroa MJ, Herrer R, Moreno JM et al. II Criterios ASEBIR de valoración morfológica de oocitos, embriones tempranos y blastocistos humanos. 2ª Ed. Madrid: Asocicación para el Estudio de la Biología de la Reproducción (ASEBIR); 2008.

  12. Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson D. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril. 2013;101:128–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Roberts SA, Fitzgerald CT, Brison D. Modelling the impact of single embryo transfer in a national health service IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2011;24:122–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:835–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rama GA, Haranath GB, Krishna KM, Prakash GJ, Madan K. Vitrification of human 8-cell embryos, a modified protocol for better pregnancy rates. Reprod BioMed Online. 2005;11:434–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li Y, Chen ZJ, Yang HJ, Zhong WX, Ma SY, Li M. Comparison of vitrification and slow-freezing of human day 3 cleavage stage embryos: post-vitrification development and pregnancy outcomes. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2007;42:753–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang XL, Zhang X, Qin YQ, Hao DY, Shi HR. Outcomes of day 3 embryo transfer with vitrification using Cryoleaf: a 3-year follow-up study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:883–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang XJ, Yang YZ, Lv Q, Wang Y, Cao XH, Guo C, et al. The impact of two different thaw protocols on outcomes of vitrified cleavage-stage embryos transfer. CryoLetters. 2012;33:411–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Desai N, Blackmon H, Szeptycki J, Goldfarb J. Cryoloop vitrification of human day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: post-vitrification development, pregnancy outcomes and live births. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14:208–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mackenna A, Crosby J, Zegers-Hochschild F. Sibling embryo blastocyst development as a prognostic factor for the outcome of day-3 embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:486–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hydén-Granskog C, Unkila-Kallio L, Halttunen M, Tiitinen A. Single embryo transfer is an option in frozen embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2935–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumasako Y, Otsu E, Utsunomiya T, Araki Y. The efficacy of the transfer of twice frozen-thawed embryos with the vitrification method. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:383–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Michael Wilson J, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koch J, Costello M, Chapman M, Kilani S. Twice-frozen embryos are no detriment to pregnancy success: a retrospective comparative study. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:58–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murakami M, Egashira A, Murakami K, Araki Y, Kuramoto T. Perinatal outcome of twice-frozen-thawed embryo transfers: a clnical follow-up study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2648–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Restrepo H, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:389–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Roy T, Bradley C, Bowman M, McArthur S. Single-embryo transfer of vitrified-warmed blastocysts yields equivalent live-birth rates and improved neonatal outcomes compared with fresh transfers. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1294–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. De Sutter P, Gerris J, Dhont M. A health-economic decision-analytic model comparing double with single embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2891–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gerris J, De Sutter P, De Neubourg D, Va Royen E, Vander J, Mangelschots K, et al. A real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:917–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fiddelers A, Van Montfoort A, Dirksen C, Dumoulin J, Land J, Dunselman G, et al. Single versus double embryo transfer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2090–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fiddelers A, Severens J, Dirksen C, Dumoulin J, Land J, Evers J. Economic evaluations of single versus double-embryo transfer in IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;13:5–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dixon S, Faghih Nasiri F, Ledger W, Lenton E, Duenas A, Dutcliffe P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different embryo transfer strategies in England. BJOG. 2008;115:758–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Guía de reproducción humana asistida en el Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía. Sevilla: Consejería de Igualdad, Salud y Políticas sociales de Andalucía, 2013 [Access December 23. 2013]. Electronic text (pdf), 92 p. Available at: www.juntadeandalucia.es/servicioandaluzdesalud.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the doctors, embryologists, nurses and staff at the Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital in Granada for their enthusiastic help during all phases of this study. We also thank the infertile couples for their participation, to improve the results obtained in the future by infertile couples receiving assisted reproduction. This article is related to the Ph.D. doctoral thesis of M.L. López Regalado.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U. Reproducción, UGC de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada, Granada, Spain

    Ma. Luisa López Regalado, Ana Clavero, M. Carmen Gonzalvo, María Serrano, Luis Martínez, Juan Mozas, Juan Fontes, Bárbara Romero & Jose A. Castilla

  2. Doctorado de Biomedicina Regenerativa de la Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    Ma. Luisa López Regalado

  3. Instituto de Biopatología y Medicina Regenerativa (IBIMER), Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    Fernando Rodríguez-Serrano

  4. Banco de Semen CEIFER, Granada, Spain

    Jose A. Castilla

  5. Centro MasVida Reproducción, Sevilla, Spain

    Jose A. Castilla

Authors
  1. Ma. Luisa López Regalado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Clavero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Carmen Gonzalvo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. María Serrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luis Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juan Mozas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fernando Rodríguez-Serrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Juan Fontes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bárbara Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jose A. Castilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ma. Luisa López Regalado.

Additional information

Capsule An eSFET policy can be applied, achieving acceptable cumulative live birth rates and reducing multiple pregnancy rate, for good prognosis women who had not achieved pregnancy in their fresh transfer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López Regalado, M.L., Clavero, A., Gonzalvo, M.C. et al. Cumulative live birth rate after two single frozen embryo transfers (eSFET) versus a double frozen embryo transfer (DFET) with cleavage stage embryos: a retrospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet 31, 1621–1627 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0346-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0346-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation