Moving Toward Single Embryo Transfer

  • Kevin S. Richter
  • Robert J. Stillman
  • Eric A. Widra
Chapter

Abstract

Multiple births are the most serious complication associated with ART. Babies born as a result of multiple pregnancy are more likely to be premature, to suffer from long-term sequelae of prematurity, and to have an increased risk of birth defects. Multiple births are also associated with increased risks of maternal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) eradicates the risk of multiple pregnancy, except in rare cases of monozygotic twinning. However, the time, effort and cost of ART is high, making it important to determine which patients will be likely to conceive through eSET. Until scientific methods allow selection of the most viable (or developmentally competent) embryo in every cohort, efforts must continue to focus on identifying those good prognosis patients at highest risk of multiple gestation who would most benefit from eSET.

References

  1. 1.
    Coetsier T, Dhont M. Avoiding multiple prengnancies in in-vitro fertilization; who’s afraid of single embryo transfer? Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2663–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:551–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer in in-vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, Zielhuis 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
  5. 5.
    Ryan GL, Sparks AE, Sipe CS, Syrop CH, Dokras A, Van Voorhis BJ. A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe Andersen A, Arce JC. A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Menopur in GnRH antagonist cycles with single embryo transfer trial group. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:561–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:835–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Practice committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1518–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:107–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, Kupka M, Nygren KG, Andersen AN, European IVF-Monitoring (EIM), Consortium for the European Society on Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2007: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:954–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pandian Z, Battacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour G, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer ­following in-vitro fertilization or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;CD003416Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:936–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, de Neubourg D, Dumoulin JC, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: a metanalysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stillman RJ, Richter KS, Banks NK, Graham JR. Elective single embryo transfer: a 6 year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1895–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;97:825–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Senat MV, Ancel PY, Bouvier-Colle MH, Breart G. How does multiple pregnancy affect maternal mortality and morbidity? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998;41:78–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Conde-Agudelo A, Belizan JM, Lindmark G. Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with multiple gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:899–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walker MC, Murphy KE, Pan S, Yang Q, Wen SW. Adverse maternal outcomes in multifetal pregnancies. BJOG. 2004;111:1294–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz DB, Daoud Y, Zazula P, Goyert G, Bronsteen R, Wright D, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus: metabolic and blood glucose parameters in singleton versus twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:912–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Day MC, Barton JR, O’Brien JM, Istwan NB, Sibai BM. The effect of fetal number on the development of hypertensive conditions of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:927–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hernandez-Diaz S, Werler MM, Mitchell AA. Gestational hypertension in pregnancies supported by infertility treatments: role of infertility, treatments, and multiple gestations. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:438–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sibai GM, Hauth J, Caritis S, Lindheimer MD, MacPherson C, Klebanoff M, et al. Hypertensive disorders in twin versus singleton gestations. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:938–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krotz S, Fajardo J, Ghandi S, Patel A, Keith LG. Hypertensive disease in twin pregnancies: a review. Twin Res. 2002;5:8–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ros HS, Lichtenstein P, Bellocco R, Petersson G, Cnattingius S. Pulmonary embolism and stroke in relation to pregnancy: how can high-risk women be identified? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:198–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Collins J. Cost efficiency of reducing multiple births. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15 Suppl 3:35–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pinborg A, Loft A, Nyboe Andersen A. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 8602 children born after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the role of twin pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:1071–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Francois K, Ortiz J, Harris C, Foley MR, Elliott JP. Is peripartum hysterectomy more common in multiple gestations? Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:1369–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, et al. Births: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2009;57:1–102.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2005. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2008;57:1–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scher AI, Petterson B, Blair E, Ellenberg JH, Grether JK, Haan E, et al. The risk of mortality or cerebral palsy in twins: a collaborative population-based study. Pediatr Res. 2002;52:671–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Doyle P. The outcome of multiple pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1996;11 Suppl 4:110–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alexander GR, Slay Wingate M, Salihu H, Kirby RS. Fetal and neonatal mortality risks of multiple births. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2005;32:1–16. vii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Doyle PE, Beral V, Botting B, Wale CJ. Congenital malformation I twins in England and Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991;45:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mastroiacovo P, Castilla EE, Arpino C, Botting B, Cocchi G, Goujard J, et al. Congenital malformations in twins: an internationals study. Am J Med Genet. 1999;83:117–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Petterson B, Nelson KB, Watson L, Stanley F. Twins, triplets, and cerebral palsy in births in Western Australia in the 1980s. BMJ. 1993;307:1239–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    O’Callaghan ME, MacLennan AH, Gibson CS, McMichael GL, Haan EA, Broadbent JL, Goldwater PN, Dekker GA, Australian Collaborative Cerebral Palsy Research Group. Epidemiologic associations with cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(3):576–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hay DA, Prior M, Collett S, Williams M. Speech and language development in preschool twins: implications for development. Twin Res. 2000;3:234–41.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Deary IJ, Pattie A, Wilson V, Whalley LJ. The cognitive cost of being a twin: two whole-population surveys. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2005;8:376–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsou MT, Tsou MW, Wu MP, Liu JT. Academic achievement of twins and singletons in early adulthood: Taiwanese cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Voracek M, Haubner T. Twin-singleton difference in intelligence: a meta-analysis. Psychol Rep. 2008;102:951–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Di Lalla LF. Social development of twins. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2006;9:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vilska S, Unkila-Kallio L, Punamäki RL, Poikkeus P, Repokari L, Sinkkonen J, Tiitinen A, Tulppala M. Mental health of mothers and fathers of twins ­conceived via assisted reproduction treatment: a 1-year prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(2):367–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Weng YA, Sullivan EA, Healy DL, Black DA. Perinatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology treatment in Australia and New Zealand: single versus double embryo transfer. Med J Aust. 2009;190:234–7.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Stern JE, Klein N, Cedars MI. The effect of early fetal losses on singleton assisted-conception pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2578–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jungheim ES, Ratts VS, Change AS, Moley KH, Lazendorf SE, Odem RR. Encouraging patient-driven single-embryo-transfer. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1266–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Landuyt L, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirtegham A. New Belgian embryo transfer policy leads to sharp decrease in multiple pregnancy rate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:765–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sunde A. Significant reduction of twins with single embryo transfer in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15 Suppl 3:28–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Stierteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1139–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blake DA, Farquahar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;CD002118Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Criniti A, Thyer A, Chow G, Lin P, Klein N, Soules M. Elective single blastocyst transfer reduces twin rates without compromising pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1613–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker J, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome; towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dennis SJ, Thomas MA, Williams DB, Robins JC. Embryo morphology score on day 3 is predictive of implantation and live birth rates. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23:171–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Van Peperstraten AM, Nelen WL, Hermens RP, Jansen L, Scheenjes E, Braat DD, et al. Why don’t we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2036–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Grobman WA, Milad MP, Stout J, Klock SC. Patient perceptions of multiple gestations; an assessment of knowledge and risk aversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:920–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hojgaard A, Ottosen LD, Kesmodel U, Ingerslev HJ. Patient attitudes towards twin pregnancies and single embryo transfer- a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2673–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ryan GL, Zhang SH, Dokras A, Syrop CH, Van Voorhis BJ. The desire of infertile patients for multiple births. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:500–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Newton CR, McBride J, Feyeles V, Tekpetey F, Power S. Factors affecting patients attitudes toward single- and multiple-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:269–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Coetzee K, Stewart B, Peek J, Hutton JD. Acceptance of single-embryo transfer by patients. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:207–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:661–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Shared-risk or refund programs in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2004;82 Suppl 1:S249–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin S. Richter
    • 1
  • Robert J. Stillman
    • 1
  • Eric A. Widra
    • 2
  1. 1.Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science CenterRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science CenterWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations