Document Detail

Elective single-embryo transfer in women aged 40-44 years.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23175499     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
STUDY QUESTION: Is an elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) policy feasible for women aged 40 or older?
SUMMARY ANSWER: For older women (aged 40-44 years) with a good prognosis, an eSET policy can be applied with acceptable cumulative clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Various studies have shown the effectiveness of eSET in women aged <35 years with high cumulative pregnancy rates and low rates of multiple births.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This retrospective cohort study included 628 women treated between 2000 and 2009.
PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: Women aged 40-44 years underwent a fresh cycle of IVF or ICSI treatment with eSET (n = 264) or double-embryo transfer (DET) (n = 364). In the subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles, SET/DET was performed in both groups according to the number of embryos available and the opinion of the couple. The study was performed at the Family Federation of Finland Helsinki Fertility Clinic.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the fresh cycles, the clinical pregnancy rates were 23.5 and 19.5% in the eSET and DET groups, respectively, and live birth rates were 13.6 and 11.0%, respectively. In the fresh cycles with eSET, there were no twin pregnancies, but in the DET group, there were three sets of twins (7.5%). The cumulative clinical pregnancy rates per oocyte retrieval were 37.1 and 24.2% in the eSET and DET groups, respectively (P < 0.001), and the cumulative live birth rates were 22.7 and 13.2%, respectively (P = 0.002). Cumulative twin rates were 6.7% (n = 4) in the eSET group and 8.3% (n = 4) in the DET group (P = 0.726). All of the twin pregnancies in the eSET group resulted from frozen and thawed DET embryo transfer cycles.
LIMITATIONS: The characteristics of the two patients groups are not comparable because the suitability of eSET was individually assessed by a clinician based on both clinical prognostic factors and the outcome of IVF or ICSI, i.e. the number and quality of embryos.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study may be generalized to IVF units having experience in eSET and cryopreservation.
M Niinimäki; A-M Suikkari; S Mäkinen; V Söderström-Anttila; H Martikainen
Related Documents :
23219009 - Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (...
23306069 - Placental endoglin levels in diamniotic-monochorionic twin gestations: correlation with...
24678489 - Thanatophoric dysplasia in a dichorionic twin confirmed by genetic analysis at the earl...
24384029 - Sex ratios provide evidence for monozygotic twinning in the ring-tailed lemur, lemur ca...
17050549 - Comparison of two fertility-sparing approaches for bilateral borderline ovarian tumours...
23474859 - Mistaken advocacy against twin pregnancies following ivf.
10755769 - Measurement of free thyroxine (t4) levels in pregnancy.
22439039 - Echotomography of craniosynostosis: review of literature.
24033789 - Shaping and remodeling of the fetoplacental circulation: aspects of health and disease.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2012-11-22
Journal Detail:
Title:  Human reproduction (Oxford, England)     Volume:  28     ISSN:  1460-2350     ISO Abbreviation:  Hum. Reprod.     Publication Date:  2013 Feb 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-01-16     Completed Date:  2013-07-25     Revised Date:  2013-11-06    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8701199     Medline TA:  Hum Reprod     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  331-5     Citation Subset:  IM    
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Age Factors
Birth Rate
Embryo Transfer / methods
Fertilization in Vitro
Maternal Age*
Pregnancy Rate*
Pregnancy, Multiple*
Retrospective Studies
Single Embryo Transfer / methods*
Comment In:
Hum Reprod. 2013 Feb;28(2):294-7   [PMID:  23175498 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  The irrational attraction of elective single-embryo transfer (eSET).
Next Document:  Validity of self-reported data on pregnancies for childhood cancer survivors: a comparison with data...