Advertisement

Strategies to Minimize Multiple Births in Recipients of Egg Donation

Chapter

Abstract

Multiple gestation is increasingly considered a complication of in vitro fertilization (IVF). No longer held is the view that pregnancy should be pursued at all costs and that multiples are simply another inevitable consequence of infertility treatment. Improved techniques for embryo culture and selection, a better understanding of the substantial risks of multiple embryo transfer, and increased regulatory scrutiny have led to a reconsideration of the definition of success in assisted reproductive technology (ART). The well-documented hazards of multiple embryo transfer together with a broader definition of adverse outcomes that include harm to the potential child(ren), mothers, families, health-care systems, and society are force vectors that encourage a revision in ART practice.

Keywords

Pregnancy Rate Embryo Transfer Assisted Reproductive Technology Multiple Gestation Blastocyst Transfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson T. Medicine and the media. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:87–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weaver JT. Carnation: the first 75 years. Los Angeles: Anderson, Richie and Simon; 1974.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klotzko AJ. Medical miracle or medical mischief? The saga of the McCaughey septuplets. Hastings Center Report. 5–8 May–June 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenthal MS. The Suleman octuplet case: an analysis of multiple ethical issues. Womens Health Issues. 2010;20:260–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Padawer R. The two minus-one pregnancy. New York Times Magazine, 10 Aug 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chauhan SP, Scardo JA, Hayes E, Abuhamad AZ, Berghella V. Twins: prevalence, problems, and preterm births. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:305–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Bentura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S. Births: final data for 2004, National vital statistics reports, vol. 55, no 1. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lieberman B, Ali R, Rangarajan S. Towards the elective replacement of a single embryo (eSET) in the United Kingdom. Hum Fertil. 2007;10:123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stromberg B, Dahlquist G, Ericson A, Finnstrom O, Koster M, Stjernqvist K. Neurological sequelae in children born after in vitro fertilization: a population based study. Lancet. 2002;359:461–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montan S. Increased risk in the elderly parturient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:110–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:551–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Factors affecting obstetric outcome of singletons born after IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2878–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Cedars M, Klein N, Stern JE. Practice patterns and outcomes with the use of single embryo transfer in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:490–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bromer JG, Ata B, Seli M, Lockwood CJ, Seli E. Preterm deliveries that result from multiple pregnancies associated with assisted reproductive technologies in the USA: a cost analysis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23:168–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Heesch MM, Bonsel GJ, Dumoulin JC, Evers JL, van der Hoeven MA, Severens JL, Dykgraaf RH, van der Veen F, Tonch N, Nelen WL, van Zonneveld P, van Goudoever JB, Tamminga P, Steiner K, Koopman-Esseboom C, van Beijsterveldt CD, Boomsma DI, Snellen D, Dirksen CD. Long term costs and effects of reducing the number of twin pregnancies in IVF by single embryo transfer: the TwinSing study. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stern JE, Cedars MI, Jain T, Klein NA, Beaird CM, Grainger DA, Gibbons WE. Assisted reproductive technology practice patterns and the impact of embryo transfer guidelines in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:275–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Repro­ductive Technology. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1518–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Land JA, Evers JL. Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:455–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Report. National summary report, 2008. Section 5. http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2008/section5.htm. Accessed 12 Nov 2011.
  20. 20.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Report. National summary report, 2009. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/art/Apps/NationalSummaryReport.aspx. Accessed 12 Nov 2011.
  21. 21.
    Aston KI, Peterson CM, Carrell DT. Monozygotic twinning associated with assisted reproductive technologies: a review. Reproduction. 2008;136:377–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kawachiya S, Bodri D, Shimada N, Kato K, Takehara Y, Kato O. Blastocyst culture is associated with an elevated incidence of monozygotic twinning after single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2140–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knopman J, Krey LC, Lee J, Fino ME, Novetsky AP, Noyes N. Monozygotic twinning: an eight-year experience at a large IVF center. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:502–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1900–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pingborg A, Strandrell A, Bergh C. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, Zielhuis GA, Adang EM, Scheenjses E, Kremer JA. 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
  27. 27.
    Moustafa MK, Sheded SA, Mousta MA. Elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:82–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gerris J, DeNeubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Van de Meerssche M, Valkenburg M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:455–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Tomas C, Tapaninen J, Orava M, Tuomivaara L, Vilska S, Hyden-Granskog C. Hovatta: one versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1900–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Montfoort APA, Fiddelers AAA, Janssen JM, Derhaag JG, Dirksen CD, Dunselman AJ, Land JA, Geraedts JPM, Evers JLH, Dumoulin JCM. In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but result in significantly lower pregnancy compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:338–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, de Neubourg D, Dumoulin JCM, Gerris J, Kremer JAM, Martikainen H, Mol BW, Norman RJ, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Tiitinen A, van Montfoort AP, van Peperstraten AM, Van Royen E, Bhattacharya S. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6945.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang YA, Kovacs G, Sullivan EA. Transfer of a selected single blastocyst optimizes the chance of a healthy term baby: a retrospective population based study in Australia 2004–2007. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(8):1996–2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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
  34. 34.
    Stillman RJ, Richter KS, Bank NK, Graham JR. Elective single embryo transfer: a 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocysts transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1895–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Committee opinion: elective single embryo transfer, 2012. http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/News_and_Publications/Practice_Guidelines/Committee_Opinions/eSETv. Accessed 16 Dec 2012.
  36. 36.
    Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Vercruyssen M, Barudy-Vasquez J, Valkenburg M, Ryckaert G. Elective single day 3 embryo transfer halves the twinning rate without decrease in the ongoing pregnancy rate of an IVF/ICSI programme. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2626–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    LeLannou D, Griveau JF, Laurent MC, Gueho A, Veron E, Morcel K. Contribution of embryo cryopreservation to elective single embryo transfer in IVF-ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:368–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Henman M, Catt JW, Wood T, Bowman MC, de Boer KA, Jansen RP. Elective transfer of single fresh blastocysts and later transfer of cryostored blastocysts reduces the twin pregnancy rate and can improve the in vitro fertilization live birth rate in younger women. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1620–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Criniti A, Wood L, Thyer A, Soules M, Ball D. Moving closer to single embryo transfer in donor oocytes recipient cycles. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Andrology and Fertility Society. 21–24 Sept 2011, Toronto.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harper JC, Harton G. The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1173–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1700–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cortezzi SS, Garcia JS, Ferreira CR, Braga DP, Figueira RC, Iaconelli Jr A, Souza GH, Borges Jr E, Eberlin MN. Secretome of the preimplantation human embryo by bottom-up label-free proteomics. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011;401:1331–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wathlet S, Adiraenssens T, Segers I, Verheyen G, Van de Velde H, Coucke W, Ron El R, Devroey P, Smitz J. Cumulus cell gene expression predicts better cleavage-stage embryo or blastocyst development and pregnancy for ICSI patients. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1035–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kilani S, Cooke S, Tilia L, Chapman M. Does meiotic spindle normality predict improved blastocyst development, implantation and live birth rates? Fertil Steril. 2011;96:389–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pribenszky C, Matyas S, Kovacs P, Losonczi E, Zadori J, Vajita G. Pregnancy achieved by transfer of a single blastocyst selected by time-lapse monitoring. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:533–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, DeJonge CJ, Baer TM, Pera R. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:1115–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cobo A, Diaz C. Clinical application of oocyte vitrification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:277–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2239–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Evans MI, Ciorca D, Britt DW, Fletcher JC. Update on selective reduction. Prenat Diagn. 2005;25:807–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Child TJ, Henderson AM, Tan SL. The desire for multiple pregnancy in male and female infertility patients. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:558–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jungheim ES, Ryan GL, Levens ED, Cunningham AF, Macones GA, Carson KR, Beltsos AN, Odem RR. Embryo transfer practices in the United States: a survey of clinics registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1432–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hope N, Rombauts L. Can an educational DVD improve the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer? A randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:489–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Letterie GS. News media reporting of multiple births [abstract]. Fertil Steril. 1998;3S:S41.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ludwig M, Schopper B, Katalinic A, Sturm R, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K. Experience with the elective transfer of two embryos under the conditions of the German embryo protection law: results of a retrospective data analysis of 2573 transfer cycles. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:319–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Brosens I, Valkenburg M, Norrre J, Renier M, Coeman D, Gordts S. Belgian legislation and the effect of elective single embryo transfer on IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:436–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, Kupka M, Nygren KG, Nyobe Andersen A, and the European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium, for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1851–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Veleva Z, Karinen P, Tomas C, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1632–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bissonnette F, Phillips SJ, Gunby J, Holzer H, Mahutte N, St-Michel P, Kadoch IJ. Working to eliminate multiple pregnancies: a success story in Quebec. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:500–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seattle Reproductive MedicineSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations