Elective Single Cleavage-Stage Embryo Transfer in IVF Patients with Suboptimal Ovarian Response is Not Detrimental to Cumulative Pregnancy and Reduces Multiple Pregnancy Rates

Overview

Journal J Obstet Gynaecol India

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2023 Sep 13

PMID 37701082

Authors

Alessio Paffoni

Sabrina Cesana

Laura Corti

Hilda Wyssling

Alessandro Kunderfranco

Marco Claudio Bianchi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate whether elective single embryo transfer in patients with suboptimal response to ovarian stimulation is detrimental to pregnancy rates compared to double embryo transfer.

Methods: A case-control retrospective study was performed in a cohort of couples undergoing IVF at the Infertility Unit of the ASST Lariana with ≤ 9 oocytes and at least 2 viable embryos. A total of 424 women were analyzed in the "double embryo transfer" group ( = 212) and elective "single embryo transfer" group ( = 212); they were matched 1:1 for female age, ovarian reserve and number of previous cycles. Cumulative clinical pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval was the main outcome.

Results: The cumulative pregnancy rate per cycle, including the fresh embryo and subsequent frozen embryo transfers, was 26% and 26%, respectively. Considering the main confounding factors, a binomial logistic model indicated that the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was not significantly affected when a single embryo transfer was performed in women recovering up to nine oocytes.

Conclusion: Live birth rate was similar between the two groups, while twin pregnancies were significantly reduced in women receiving single embryo transfer suggesting that elective single embryo transfer in patients with a limited number of embryos is not detrimental to pregnancy rates.

References

Frattarelli J, Leondires M, McKeeby J, Miller B, Segars J . Blastocyst transfer decreases multiple pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2003; 79(1):228-30. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04558-2. View

Grifo J, Kofinas J, Schoolcraft W . The practice of in vitro fertilization according to the published literature. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102(3):658-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.021. View

Wyns C, Bergh C, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka M, Motrenko T . ART in Europe, 2016: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 2020(3):hoaa032. PMC: 7394132. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa032. View

Somigliana E, Busnelli A, Paffoni A, Vigano P, Riccaboni A, Rubio C . Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies. Fertil Steril. 2019; 111(6):1169-1176. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.025. View

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

Gleicher N, Vega M, Darmon S, Weghofer A, Wu Y, Wang Q . Live-birth rates in very poor prognosis patients, who are defined as poor responders under the Bologna criteria, with nonelective single embryo, two-embryo, and three or more embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2015; 104(6):1435-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.023. View

Leijdekkers J, Eijkemans M, van Tilborg T, Oudshoorn S, van Golde R, Hoek A . Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women. Hum Reprod. 2019; 34(6):1030-1041. PMC: 6555622. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez051. View

Van der Auwera I, Debrock S, Spiessens C, Afschrift H, Bakelants E, Meuleman C . A prospective randomized study: day 2 versus day 5 embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(6):1507-12. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.6.1507. View

de Graaf M, Jager K, Zoccali C, Dekker F . Matching, an appealing method to avoid confounding?. Nephron Clin Pract. 2011; 118(4):c315-8. DOI: 10.1159/000323136. View

10.

Kamath M, Mascarenhas M, Kirubakaran R, Bhattacharya S . Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 8:CD003416. PMC: 8094586. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003416.pub5. View

11.

Jonsdottir I, Lundin K, Bergh C . Double embryo transfer gives good pregnancy and live birth rates in poor responders with a modest increase in multiple birth rates: results from an observational study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011; 90(7):761-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01139.x. View

12.

Niinimaki M, Suikkari A, Makinen S, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Martikainen H . Elective single-embryo transfer in women aged 40-44 years. Hum Reprod. 2012; 28(2):331-5. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des399. View

13.

Esteves S, Yarali H, Vuong L, Carvalho J, Ozbek I, Polat M . Cumulative delivery rate per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in POSEIDON patients: a real-world evidence study of 9073 patients. Hum Reprod. 2021; 36(8):2157-2169. PMC: 8289325. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab152. View

14.

. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(3):667-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.087. View

15.

Adler A, Lee H, McCulloh D, Ampeloquio E, Clarke-Williams M, Wertz B . Blastocyst culture selects for euploid embryos: comparison of blastomere and trophectoderm biopsies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014; 28(4):485-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.11.018. View

16.

Wong K, Repping S, Mastenbroek S . Limitations of embryo selection methods. Semin Reprod Med. 2014; 32(2):127-33. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363554. View

17.

Papanikolaou E, Camus M, Kolibianakis E, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P . In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(11):1139-46. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa053524. View

18.

. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(6):1270-83. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der037. View

19.

van Heesch M, van Asselt A, Evers J, van der Hoeven M, Dumoulin J, van Beijsterveldt C . Cost-effectiveness of embryo transfer strategies: a decision analytic model using long-term costs and consequences of singletons and multiples born as a consequence of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(11):2527-2540. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew229. View

20.

Alviggi C, Andersen C, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves S . A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016; 105(6):1452-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005. View