4.7 Article

A real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 917-923

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh188

关键词

assisted reproductive technology; health economic analysis; single embryo transfer; single versus two-embryo transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: We analysed the difference in maternal, neonatal and total costs after single (SET) versus double day 3 embryo transfer (DET). METHODS: We performed a two-centre prospective study of women in their first IVF/ICSI cycle choosing between SET or DET. Infertility treatment data were gathered from a database; maternal and neonatal outcome data from a case report form (CRF); health economic data from medical acts registered in the CRF for the outpatient part and from hospital bills. SET was performed in 206/367 (56.1%) and DET in 161/367 (43.9%) women. RESULTS: In all, 367 transfers yielded 186 positive pregnancy tests, 148 ongoing pregnancies and 136 live deliveries (50.7, 40.3 and 37.1% per embryo transfer) of which 15 (11.0%) were twins. Live birth rate was 37.4% for SET, 36.6% for DET. Intention-to-treat analysis showed differences for: duration of pregnancy (SET: 39.0 +/- 1.4 versus DET: 38.3 +/- 2.2 weeks; P = 0.055), percentage prematurity (8.5 versus 23.8%; P = 0.033), percentage of neonates hospitalized (5.7 versus 17.9%; P = 0.121) and duration of neonatal hospitalization (6.3 +/- 2.2 versus 10.3 +/- 10.1 days; P = 0.01). Total cost after DET was higher (SET: e4700 +/- 3239 versus DET: e8613 +/- 10 105; P = 0.105), due to significantly higher neonatal costs (e451 +/- 957 versus e3453 +/- 8154; P < 0.001) and not to differences in maternal costs (e4250 +/- 2882 versus e5160 +/- 4106; P = 0.152). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective health economic study shows that transfer of a single top quality embryo is equally effective as, but substantially cheaper than, double embryo transfer in women <38 years of age in their first IVF/ICSI cycle.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据