4.7 Article

Monozygotic twinning: an eight-year experience at a large IVF center

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 94, Issue 2, Pages 502-510

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.064

Keywords

Monozygotic pregnancy; chorionicity; amnionicity; blastocyst; twinning; high risk pregnancy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To characterize incidence, chorionicity, amnionicity, and pregnancy outcome for monozygotic twin pregnancy (MZT) after IVF. Design: Retrospective review. Setting: University-based fertility center. Patient(s): Autologous and oocyte donation IVF cycles eventuating in 4,976 clinical gestations from 2000 to 2007. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): MZT incidence, chorionicity, zygosity, pregnancy outcome. Result(s): Ninety-eight MZTs were diagnosed after first-trimester ultrasound evaluation (2% incidence). The incidence in cycles transfering autologous oocytes was 1.7% but was 3.3% with donor oocytes; however, women <35 years old using their own oocytes displayed a similar rate (3.1%) to women using donor oocytes. Eighty MZTs occurred after fresh day-5 transfer; only 14 followed fresh day-3 transfer (2.6% vs. 1.2%). The MZT incidence in day-3 transfers without hatching was not different from those with hatching (1.3% vs. 1.1%). In addition, MZT incidence did not differ significantly whether or not ICSI was performed (2.4% vs. 2.0%). Four MZTs occurred after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (0.8% incidence). Ninety-five percent of all placental arrangements were confirmed as monochorionic-diamniotic on obstetric ultrasounds. Conclusion(s): These findings confirm a higher incidence of MZT after IVF. Monochorionic-diamniotic implantations were increased, whereas monochorionic-monoamniotic were not. The MZT risk factors included young age and extended culture, but not zona penetration or cryopreservation. (Fertil Steril(R) 2010;94:502-10. (C) 2010 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available