Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Live birth and multiple birth rates in US in vitro fertilization treatment using donor oocytes: a comparison of single-embryo transfer and double-embryo transfer

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

Abstract

Objective

To compare live birth rates (LBRs) and multiple birth rates (MBRs) between elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) and double-embryo transfer (DET) in donor oocyte in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments in both a cycle-level and clinic-level analysis.

Methods

Donor oocyte IVF treatments performed by US IVF clinics reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2013–2014 were included in the analysis. Primary outcomes included LBR and MBR. Secondary outcomes included gestational age at delivery (GA) and birth weight (BW) of offspring. These outcomes were evaluated on an individual cycle level as well as on the clinic level.

Results

In multivariable models, LBR did not change significantly as clinics utilized eSET more frequently. MBR decreased significantly as utilization of eSET increased, from 39% MBR in clinics that utilized eSET 0–9% of the time to 7% MBR in clinics that used eSET 70% of the time (P < .0001). Mean BW and GA of IVF-conceived offspring both increased as clinics utilized eSET more frequently (2778 to 3185 g [P < .0001] and 37.5 to 38.5 weeks [P = .02] for clinics with the lowest and highest eSET utilization, respectively).

Conclusions

US IVF clinics utilizing eSET with higher frequencies have clinically comparable LBRs and significantly lower MBRs than clinics with lower-frequency eSET utilization. Mean offspring BW and GA increased with higher eSET utilization, further confirming the improved safety of this practice.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ASfRM, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2014 Assisted reproductive technology national summary report. US Dept of Health and Human Services. 2016.

  2. Kawwass JF, Monsour M, Crawford S, Kissin DM, Session DR, Kulkarni AD, et al. Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000-2010. JAMA. 2013;310(22):2426–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fitzpatrick KE, Tuffnell D, Kurinczuk JJ, Knight M. Pregnancy at very advanced maternal age: a UK population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2017;124(7):1097–106.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Joseph KS, Allen AC, Dodds L, Turner LA, Scott H, Liston R. The perinatal effects of delayed childbearing. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(6):1410–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 144. Multifetal gestations: twin, triplet, and higher-order multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1118–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive T, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive M. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):835–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology 2014 National summary report. (Accessed 9 Aug 2017 at https://www.sartcorsonline.com/).

  8. Kresowik JD, Stegmann BJ, Sparks AE, Ryan GL, van Voorhis BJ. Five-years of a mandatory single-embryo transfer (mSET) policy dramatically reduces twinning rate without lowering pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(6):1367–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dude AM, Yeh JS, Muasher SJ. Donor oocytes are associated with preterm birth when compared to fresh autologous in vitro fertilization cycles in singleton pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):660–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Letur H, Peigne M, Ohl J, Cedrin-Durnerin I, Mathieu-D’Argent E, Scheffler F, et al. Hypertensive pathologies and egg donation pregnancies: results of a large comparative cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):284–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Storgaard M, Loft A, Bergh C, Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Romundstad LB, et al. Obstetric and neonatal complications in pregnancies conceived after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2017;124(4):561–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Simchen MJ, Shulman A, Wiser A, Zilberberg E, Schiff E. The aged uterus: multifetal pregnancy outcome after ovum donation in older women. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2009;24(10):2500–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crawford S, Boulet SL, Kawwass JF, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM. Cryopreserved oocyte versus fresh oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles, United States, 2013. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(1):110–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang A, Santistevan A, Hunter Cohn K, Copperman A, Nulsen J, Miller BT, et al. Freeze-only versus fresh embryo transfer in a multicenter matched cohort study: contribution of progesterone and maternal age to success rates. Fertility and Sterility. 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Drive, 31141 PFP, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    V. E. Klenov, R. B. Mejia, A. Mancuso & B. J. Van Voorhis

  2. Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA

    S. L. Boulet & D. M. Kissin

  3. Texas Fertility Center, San Antonio, TX, USA

    E. Munch

Authors
  1. V. E. Klenov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. L. Boulet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. B. Mejia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. M. Kissin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Munch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Mancuso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. J. Van Voorhis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. E. Klenov.

Ethics declarations

We obtained study approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klenov, V.E., Boulet, S.L., Mejia, R.B. et al. Live birth and multiple birth rates in US in vitro fertilization treatment using donor oocytes: a comparison of single-embryo transfer and double-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 1657–1664 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1243-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1243-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation