Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transfer of 2 Embryos Using a Double-Embryo Transfer Protocol Versus 2 Sequential Single-Embryo Transfers: The Impact on Multiple Pregnancy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are associated with potential risks, mainly related to multiple pregnancies, which are around 20% to 25%. Iatrogenic multiple pregnancies due to ovarian stimulation with multiples embryos transferred can be avoided by the elective single-embryo transfer (eSET), a growing practice worldwide. Adequately applied eSET, which impact on the incidence of complications without compromising treatment success, is still a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the cumulative success rates of elective transfer of 2 embryos when transferred one by one (eSET), versus the success rates of elective double-embryo transfer (DET) in a single procedure, in a good prognosis population. Methods: This study evaluated 610 good prognosis infertile couples undergoing ART, split into 2 groups: eSET group which included those receiving first eSET (n = 237) and for those who did not become pregnant, they could receive a second frozen-thawed SET; and eDET group (n = 373) who received elective transfer of 2 good quality embryos in the first transfer. Results: Clinical pregnancy outcomes after a transfer of 2 embryos were similar between the groups (DET: 46.6% vs accumulated SET: 45.9%; P = .898). Multiple pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the group receiving transfer of 2 embryos, one by one, compared to DET (DET: 32.2% vs accumulated SET: 6.7%; P < .001). Conclusions: The eSET policy should be stimulated for good prognosis couples, as it maintains the accumulated clinical pregnancy rates, avoids multiples pregnancies, and consequently the maternal and neonate complication and indirect costs of treatment when considering spending on the obstetrics are reduced.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2017;66(6):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Temporal trends in multiple births after in vitro fertilisation in Sweden, 1982-2001: a register study. BMJ. 2005;331(7513):382–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Källeén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Otterblad Olausson P. Trends in delivery and neonatal outcome after in vitro fertilization in Sweden: data for 25 years. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):1026–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Klemetti R, Gissler M, Hemminki E. Comparison of perinatal health of children born from IVF in Finland in the early and late 1990s. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(8):2192–2198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(3):611–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Min JK, Breheny SA, MacLachlan V, Healy DL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(1):3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zegers-Hochschild F, Schwarze JE, Crosby JA, Musri C, Urbina MT; Latin American Network of Assisted Reproduction (RED-LARA). Assisted reproductive techniques in Latin America: The Latin American Registry, 2013. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2016; 20(2):49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17(1):107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Kushnir VA, Jamieson DJ; ARTSSG National. Number of embryos transferred after in vitro fertilization and good perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Steinberg ML, Boulet S, Kissin D, Warner L, Jamieson DJ. Elective single embryo transfer trends and predictors of a good perinatal outcome—United States, 1999 to 2010. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(7):1937–1943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, et al. Application of a validated prediction model for in vitro fertilization: comparison of live birth rates and multiple birth rates with 1 embryo transferred over 2 cycles vs 2 embryos in 1 cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212(5):676 e1-e7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341: c6945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crawford S, Boulet SL, Mneimneh AS, et al. Costs of achieving live birth from assisted reproductive technology: a comparison of sequential single and double embryo transfer approaches. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):444–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive, T and M Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):835–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. CFM, CFdM, RESOLUÇÃO CFM N0 2.013/13. NORMAS ETI-CAS PARA A UTILIZAÇÃO DAS TECNICAS DE REPRODU-ÇÃO ASSISTIDA. Brasilia; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Veeck LL An atlas of human gametes and conceptuses: an illustrated reference for assisted reproductive technology. The Encyclopedia of Visual Medicine Series. New York: Parthenon Pub. Group; 1999:215.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73(6):1155–1158.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zollner U, Dietl J. Perinatal risks after IVF and ICSI. J Perinat Med. 2013;41(1):17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chambers GM, Hoang VP, Lee E, et al. Hospital costs of multiple-birth and singleton-birth children during the first 5 years of life and the role of assisted reproductive technology. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(11):1045–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Murray SR, Norman JE. Multiple pregnancies following assisted reproductive technologies—a happy consequence or double trouble? Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;19(4):222–227.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. van Heesch MM, Evers JL, Van Der Hoeven MA, et al. Hospital costs during the first 5 years of life for multiples compared with singletons born after IVF or ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(6):1481–1490.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Monteleone PA, Mirisola RJ, Goncalves SP, Baracat EC, Serafini PC. Outcomes of elective cryopreserved single or double embryo transfers following failure to conceive after fresh single embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(2):161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Adashi EY, Gleicher N. Is a blanket elective single embryo transfer policy defensible? Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2017;8(2).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rai V, Betsworth A, Beer C, Ndukwe G, Glazebrook C. Comparing patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of elective single embryo transfer using the attitudes to a twin IVF pregnancy scale (ATIPS). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(1):65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tobias T, Sharara FI, Franasiak JM, Heiser PW, Pinckney-Clark E. Promoting the use of elective single embryo transfer in clinical practice. Fertil Res Pract. 2016;2:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, Taylor V, Bhattacharya S. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(4):911–916.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hope N, Rombauts L. Can an educational DVD improve the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer? A randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):489–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) reduces pregnancy rates and should only be used in exceptional circumstances: FOR: the statistically flawed model of eSET. BJOG. 2017;124(5):755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Miller LM. ‘Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) reduces pregnancy rates and should only be used in exceptional circumstances’: AGAINST: SET maintains live birth rates and provides unique advantages. BJOG. 2017;124(5):756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Centro de Reprodução Humana Governador Mario Covas, Universidade de Sao Paulo (HCFMUSP), Av. Dr. Enéas Carvalho de Aguiar, 255 - 10 andar, Cerqueira Ceísar, São Paulo, 05403, Brazil

    Pedro A. A. Monteleone MD, PhD, Pedro F. M. Peregrino MD, Edmund C. Baracat MD, PhD & Paulo C. Serafini MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Pedro A. A. Monteleone MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro F. M. Peregrino MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edmund C. Baracat MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paulo C. Serafini MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro A. A. Monteleone MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monteleone, P.A.A., Peregrino, P.F.M., Baracat, E.C. et al. Transfer of 2 Embryos Using a Double-Embryo Transfer Protocol Versus 2 Sequential Single-Embryo Transfers: The Impact on Multiple Pregnancy. Reprod. Sci. 25, 1501–1508 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719118756750

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719118756750

Keywords

Search

Navigation