4.4 Article

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

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 35, Issue 9, Pages 1657-1664

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1243-0

Keywords

Elective single-embryo transfer; Live birth rate; Multiple birth rate; Donor oocyte; IVF

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available