Single Embryo Transfer

doi:10.1017/9781316488294.020

Chapter 20 - Single Embryo Transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2019

Martine Nijs

Edited by

Jane A. Stewart

Show author details

Jane A. Stewart: Affiliation:
Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Worldwide 95% of the adults express their desire for a child. Between 8 and 12% of reproductive-aged couples worldwide have problems conceiving. The probable global average for infertility is estimated to affect 9% of women. In some regions of the world, the rates of infertility are much higher, reaching up to 30% in some populations [1]. Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in the number of centres offering Assisted Reproduction Techniques (ART). The number of ART cycles performed worldwide has increased clearly over time: a 5–10% increase per annum. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies reported >1,251,881 procedures with ART in their World Report on Assisted Reproductive Technologies for 2007 [2]. This Committee yearly summarises the data collection set from 2,419 of 3,354 (72.1%) known ART clinics in 55 countries. In 2007, in the United Kingdom, availability of ART was estimated to have been at 766 cycles per million inhabitants. Availability of ART treatments varies by country from 12 (Guatemala) to 4,140 (Israel) treatments per million population. The latter is the result of substantial economic support for patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Australia, New Zealand, and European countries, especially northern Europe, also strongly support ART treatments. The overall worldwide delivery rate per fresh aspiration stood at 20.3% in 2007, ranging from 8% to 33%. For frozen-embryo transfer (FET), delivery rates were 18.4%, resulting in a cumulative delivery rate of 25.8%. In the United Kingdom in 2013, a delivery rate of 26% per cycle started was noted [3]. In Europe, the delivery rate after cycle of intrauterine insemination (IUI) with husband’s semen was 8.9% and 13.8% after IUI with donor semen [4].

Type: Chapter
Information: Subfertility, Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproduction , pp. 153 - 158

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316488294.020 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Inhorn, MC, Patrizio, P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century., Hum Rep Update 2015; 21: 411–26.Google Scholar

Ishihara, O, Adamson, GD, Dyer, S, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies: World Report on Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Fertil Steril 2007; 103: 402–13.Google Scholar

HFEA Report, Improving outcomes for fertility patients: multiple births 2015. Available online www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Multiple_Births_Report_2015.pdf2015 (Accessed December 2015).Google Scholar

Kupka, MS, Ferraretti, AP, de Mouzon, J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2014; 10: 2099–113.Google Scholar

HFEA Fertility treatment in 2013: trends and figures. Available online www.hfea.gov.uk/9463.html (Accessed December 2015).Google Scholar

Barrington, KJ, Janvier, A. The paediatric consequences of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, with special emphasis on multiple pregnancies Acta Paediatrica. Int J Pediatr. 2013; 102: 340–8.Google Scholar

Henningsen, AA, Wennerholm, UB, Gissler, M. Risk of stillbirth and infant deaths after assisted reproductive technology: a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 1090–6.Google Scholar

Sejbaek, CS, Pinborg, A, Hageman, I. Are repeated assisted reproductive technology treatments and an unsuccessful outcome risk factors for unipolar depression in infertile women? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94: 1048–55.Google Scholar

Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Pregnancy outcomes after assisted human reproduction. Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014; 36: 64–83.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jauniaux, E, Ben-Ami, I, Maymon, R. Do assisted-reproduction twin pregnancies require additional antenatal care? Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26: 107–19.Google Scholar

Evron, E, Sheiner, E, Friger, M. Vanishing twin syndrome: is it associated with adverse perinatal outcome? Fertil Steril. 2015; 103: 1209–14.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with Fertility problems. Clinical Guidelines CG156, 2013, Available online www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156 (Accessed December 2015).Google Scholar

Masoudian, P, Nasr, A, De Nanassy, J et al. Oocyte donation pregnancies and the risk of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214(3): 328–39.Google Scholar

Bodri, D, Kawachiya, S, De Brucker, M, et al. Cumulative success rates following mild IVF in unselected infertile patients: a 3-year, single-centre cohort study. RBM Online 2014; 28: 572–81.Google Scholar

Harbottle, S, Hughes, S, Cutting, R, et al. Elective single embryo transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines. Hum Fertil. 2015; 18: 165–183.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mantikou, E, Youssef, M, Wely van, M, et al. Embryo culture media and IVF/ICSI success rates: a systematic review. Hum Rep Update. 2014; 19: 210–20.Google Scholar

Swain, JE Decisions for the IVF laboratory: comparative analysis of embryo culture incubators. RBM Online. 2014; 28: 535–47.Google Scholar

Kaser, DJ and Racowsky, C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Rep Update. 2014; 20: 617–31.Google Scholar

Lee, E, Illingworth, P, Wilton, L, et al. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 473–83.Google Scholar

Bolton, V, Leary, C, Harbottle, S, et al. How should we choose the ‘best’ embryo? A commentary on behalf of the British Fertility Society and the Association of Clinical Embryologists. Hum Fertil. 2015; 18: 156–164.Google Scholar

American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil & Steril. 2012; 99: 44–6.Google Scholar

Chambers, GM, Lee, E, Hoang, VP, et al. Hospital utilization, costs and mortality rates during the first 5 years of life: a population study of ART and non-ART singletons. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 601–10.Google Scholar

Chambers, GM, Hoang, VP, Sullivan, EA, et al. The impact of consumer affordability on access to assisted reproductive technologies and embryo transfer practices: an international analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101: 191–198.Google Scholar

Youssef, MM, Mantikou, E, van Wely, M. Culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; Issue 11. Art. No.: CD007876. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007876.pub2.CrossRef Google Scholar

De Neubourg, D, Bogaerts, K, Wyns, C, et al. The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 2709–19.Google Scholar

Dhillon, RK, McLernon, DJ, Smith, PP, et al. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31: 84–92.Google Scholar

te Velde, ER, Nieboer, D, Lintsen, AM, et al. Comparison of two models predicting IVF success; the effect of time trends on model performance. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 57–64.Google Scholar

Nelson, SM, Lawlor, DA, et al. Predicting live birth, preterm delivery, and low birth weight in infants born from in vitro fertilisation: a prospective study of 144,018 treatment cycles. PLoS Med. 2011; 8(1).Google Scholar