The German Middleway As Precursor for Single Embryo Transfer. A Retrospective Data-analysis of the Düsseldorf University Hospital's Interdisciplinary Fertility Centre - UniKiD

Overview

Journal Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2016 Jul 2

PMID 27365539

Citations 5

Authors

T K Kliebisch

A P Bielfeld

J S Krussel

D M Baston-Bust

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Patients receiving fertility treatment in Germany appear to be disadvantaged in comparison to those in other countries due to the restrictive Embryo Protection Act ("Embryonenschutzgesetz, ESchG"), which prohibits the selection of a "top" embryo. The so-called German Middleway ("Deutscher Mittelweg, DMW") now provides for a liberal interpretation of the ESchG by allowing the culture of numerous pronuclear stages (2PN stage). Retrospective cohort study of 2 assisted reproduction treatment cycles in n = 400 patients between the ages of 21 and 45 years, either treated 2× conservatively or 1× conservatively and 1× liberally according to DMW. Pregnancy was achieved in 35 % of patients in the DMW group and 31 % of controls. The birth rate among controls was 28.5 % and 30.5 % in the DMW group. Most pregnancies resulted from the culture of 4 × 2PN stages. Patients in the DMW group had significantly higher pregnancy and birth rates compared to their previous cycles despite significantly increased age and significantly fewer transferred embryos. Key factors were the number of 2PNs generated and the quality of embryos transferred. Thus it can be assumed that particularly older patients with adequate ovarian reserves will benefit from DMW, i.e. the transfer of fewer embryos of the best possible quality.

Citing Articles

Ex ovo omnia-why don't we know more about egg quality via imaging?.

Boylan C, Sambo K, Neal-Perry G, Brayboy L Biol Reprod. 2024; 110(6):1201-1212.

PMID: 38767842 PMC: 11180616. DOI: 10.1093/biolre/ioae080.

Non-invasive cumulus cell analysis can be applied for oocyte ranking and is useful for countries with legal restrictions on embryo generation or freezing.

Adriaenssens T, Van Vaerenbergh I, Van Landuyt L, Verheyen G, De Brucker M, Camus M PLoS One. 2024; 19(1):e0297040.

PMID: 38295095 PMC: 10830053. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297040.

Is Blastocyst Culture Responsible for Higher Pregnancy Rates? A Critical Analysis of the Day of Optimal Embryo Transfer and Embryo Quality.

Gunther V, Dasari-Mettler A, Mettler L, von Otte S, Ackermann J, Maass N JBRA Assist Reprod. 2022; 26(3):492-499.

PMID: 35403418 PMC: 9355446. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20210098.

Semantic segmentation of human oocyte images using deep neural networks.

Targosz A, Przystalka P, Wiaderkiewicz R, Mrugacz G Biomed Eng Online. 2021; 20(1):40.

PMID: 33892725 PMC: 8066497. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-021-00864-w.

Final destination of surplus cryopreserved embryos. What decision should be made?.

Abreu C, Abreu M, Abreu M, Abreu J, Silva L, Cruzeiro I JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021; 25(2):276-281.

PMID: 33565288 PMC: 8083851. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20200085.

References

Devroey P, Polyzos N, Blockeel C . An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(10):2593-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der251. View

Ismail L, Mittal M, Kalu E . IVF twins: buy one get one free?. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2012; 38(4):252-7. DOI: 10.1136/jfprhc-2011-100263. View

Ezugwu E, van der Burg S . Debating Elective Single Embryo Transfer after in vitro Fertilization: A Plea for a Context-Sensitive Approach. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2015; 5(1):1-7. PMC: 4350055. DOI: 10.4103/2141-9248.149761. View

Sifer C, Sermondade N, Poncelet C, Hafhouf E, Porcher R, Cedrin-Durnerin I . Biological predictive criteria for clinical pregnancy after elective single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010; 95(1):427-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.07.1055. View

Harbottle S, Hughes C, Cutting R, Roberts S, Brison D . Elective Single Embryo Transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2015; 18(3):165-83. DOI: 10.3109/14647273.2015.1083144. View

Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A . Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; (7):CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4. View

Gleicher N, Kushnir V, Barad D . Is it time for a paradigm shift in understanding embryo selection?. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015; 13:3. PMC: 4326369. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-13-3. View

Prados N, Quiroga R, Caligara C, Ruiz M, Blasco V, Pellicer A . Elective single versus double embryo transfer: live birth outcome and patient acceptance in a prospective randomised trial. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2014; 27(5):794-800. DOI: 10.1071/RD13412. View

Grow D, Kawwass J, Kulkarni A, Durant T, Jamieson D, Macaluso M . GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols: comparison of outcomes among good-prognosis patients using national surveillance data. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014; 29(3):299-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.05.007. View

10.

. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2011; 97(4):835-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050. View

11.

Ubaldi F, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, Vajta G . Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(9):2097-106. PMC: 4542718. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev159. View

12.

Snick H, Snick T, Evers J, Collins J . The spontaneous pregnancy prognosis in untreated subfertile couples: the Walcheren primary care study. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12(7):1582-8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/12.7.1582. View

13.

Kupka M, DHooghe T, Ferraretti A, de Mouzon J, Erb K, Castilla J . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(2):233-48. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev319. View

14.

Thompson S, Onwubalili N, Brown K, Jindal S, McGovern P . Blastocyst expansion score and trophectoderm morphology strongly predict successful clinical pregnancy and live birth following elective single embryo blastocyst transfer (eSET): a national study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013; 30(12):1577-81. PMC: 3843172. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-0100-4. View

15.

Niinimaki M, Veleva Z, Martikainen H . Embryo quality is the main factor affecting cumulative live birth rate after elective single embryo transfer in fresh stimulation cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 194:131-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.08.031. View

16.

Cupisti S, Muller A, Hildebrandt T, Hackl J, Beckmann M, Dittrich R . Culture of Individually Required Number of 2-Pronuclei-Stage Oocytes - Patient Participation in Decision-Making is in Accordance with the Aim of Avoiding Surplus Embryo Freezing. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014; 74(2):157-160. PMC: 3973936. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1360344. View

17.

Al-Inany H, Youssef M, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J . Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (5):CD001750. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub3. View

18.

Shrestha D, La X, Feng H . Comparison of different stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization: a review. Ann Transl Med. 2015; 3(10):137. PMC: 4486909. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.04.09. View

19.

van Montfoort A, Fiddelers A, Janssen J, Derhaag J, Dirksen C, Dunselman G . In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005; 21(2):338-43. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei359. View

20.

Kupka M, Ferraretti A, de Mouzon J, Erb K, DHooghe T, Castilla J . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE†. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(10):2099-113. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu175. View