Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 483–489 | Cite as

Abnormal human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trends after transfer of multiple embryos resulting in viable singleton pregnancies

  • Paula C. Brady
  • Leslie V. Farland
  • Stacey A. Missmer
  • Catherine Racowsky
  • Janis H. Fox
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether abnormal hCG trends occur at a higher incidence among women conceiving singleton pregnancies following transfer of multiple (two or more) embryos (MET), as compared to those having a single embryo transfer (SET).

Methods

Retrospective cohort study was performed of women who conceived singleton pregnancies following fresh or frozen autologous IVF/ICSI cycles with day 3 or day 5 embryo transfers between 2007 and 2014 at a single academic medical center. Cycles resulting in one gestational sac on ultrasound followed by singleton live birth beyond 24 weeks of gestation were included. Logistic regression models adjusted a priori for patient age at oocyte retrieval and day of embryo transfer were used to estimate the Odds Ratio of having an abnormal hCG rise (defined as a rise or < 66% in 2 days) following SET as compared to MET.

Results

Among patients receiving two or more embryos, 6.1% (n = 84) had abnormal hCG rises between the first and second measurements, compared to 2.7% (n = 17) of patients undergoing SET (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.26–3.71). Among patients with initially abnormal hCG rises who had a third level checked (89%), three-quarters had normal hCG rises between the second and third measurements.

Conclusions

Patients who deliver singletons following MET were more likely to have suboptimal initial hCG rises, potentially due to transient implantation of other non-viable embryo(s). While useful for counseling, these findings should not change standard management of abnormal hCG rises following IVF. The third hCG measurements may clarify pregnancy prognosis.

Keywords

Embryo transfer Human chorionic gonadotropin Chemical pregnancy In vitro fertilization 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Doubilet PM. Ultrasound evaluation of the first trimester. Radiol Clin N Am. 2014;52:1191–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kadar N, Caldwell BV, Romero R. A method of screening for ectopic pregnancy and its indications. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;58:162–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Condous G, Kirk E, Van Calster B, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Failing pregnancies of unknown location: a prospective evaluation of the human chorionic gonadotrophin ratio. BJOG. 2006;113:521–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zeadna A, Son WY, Moon JH, Dahan MH. A comparison of biochemical pregnancy rates between women who underwent IVF and fertile controls who conceived spontaneously. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:783–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farquharson RG, Jauniaux E, Exalto N. Updated and revised nomenclature for description of early pregnancy events. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3008–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Kissin DM, Jamieson DJ. National ART Surveillance (NASS) group. Risk of ectopic pregnancy associated with assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2001–2011. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:70–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheung LP, Lam PM, Lok IH, Chiu TT, Yeung SY, Tjer CC, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:616–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tummn IS, Daniel SA, Kaplan BR, Nisker JA, Yuzpe AA. Randomized, prospective comparison of luteal leuprolide acetate and gonadotropins versus clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins in 408 first cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Surrey ES, Bower J, Hill DM, Ramsey J, Surrey MW. Clinical and endocrine effects of a microdose GnRH agonist flare regimen administered to poor responders who are undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:419–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dragisic KG, Davis OK, Fasouliotis SJ, Rosenwaks Z. Use of a luteal estradiol patch and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1023–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. WHO International Standard 4th IS Chorionic Gonadotropin, Human NIBSC code: 75/589. https://www.nibsc.org/documents/ifu/75-589.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2016.
  12. 12.
    Mickey RM, Greenland S. The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:125–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung K, Sammel MD, Coutifaris C, Chalian R, Lin K, Castelbaum AJ, et al. Defining the rise of serum HCG in viable pregnancies achieved through use of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:823–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morse CB, Barnhart KT, Senapati S, Sammel MD, Prochaska EC, Dokras A, et al. Association of the very early rise of human chorionic gonadotropin with adverse outcomes in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1208–1214.e3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franasiak JM, Dondik Y, Molinaro TA, Hong KH, Forman EJ, Werner MD, et al. Blastocyst transfer is not associated with increased rates of monozygotic twins when controlling for embryo cohort quality. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:95–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knopman JM, Krey LC, Oh C, Lee J, McCaffrey C, Noyes N. What makes them split? Identifying risk factors that lead to monozygotic twins after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:82–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skiadas CC, Missmer SA, Benson CB, Gee RE, Racowsky C. Risk factors associated with pregnancies containing a monochorionic pair following assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1366–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu HC, Cohen J, Alikani M, Noyes N, Rosenwaks Z. Assisted hatching facilitates earlier implantation. Fertil Steril. 1993;60:871–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barnhart KT, Sammel MD, Rinaudo PF, Zhou L, Hummel AC, Guo W. Symptomatic patients with an early viable intrauterine pregnancy: HCG curves redefined. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:50–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kathiresan AS, Cruz-Almeida Y, Barrionuevo MJ, Maxson WS, Hoffman DI, Weitzman VN, et al. Prognostic value of beta-human chorionic gonadotropin is dependent on day of embryo transfer during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:1362–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Men CJ, Bormann CL, Walsh BW, Racowsky C. Is the presence of an uncleaved embryo on day 3 a useful predictor of outcomes following day 5 transfer? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1379–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1999;11:307–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula C. Brady
    • 1
  • Leslie V. Farland
    • 1
  • Stacey A. Missmer
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Catherine Racowsky
    • 1
  • Janis H. Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EpidemiologyHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  3. 3.Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, College of Human MedicineMichigan State UniversityGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations