What about the remaining twins since single-embryo transfer? How far can (should) we go?

被引:16
|
作者
De Neubourg, D [1 ]
Gerris, J [1 ]
机构
[1] Middelheim Hosp, Ctr Reprod Med, B-2020 Antwerp, Belgium
关键词
remaining twins; single-embryo transfer; twin prevention in ART;
D O I
10.1093/humrep/dei425
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Single-embryo transfer (SET) and more specifically elective SET (eSET) have taken their place in good clinical IVF/ICSI practice. After the initial cautious search for the characteristics of the twin-prone patient and of the selection of the embryo with the highest implantation potential many centres have embarked on the (progressive) implementation of SET, either by conviction or forced by legislation or both. It was only because the ongoing pregnancy rates remained largely unaffected that SET was accepted. Generally speaking, it can be said that the twinning rate after IVF/ICSI has dropped by at least 50% simply by transferring only one good-quality embryo in the first and second fresh IVF/ICSI cycles in young women, without decrease in the overall pregnancy rate. Preventing 'the second half' of IVF/ICSI twins constitutes another and probably tougher challenge because the target group is a heterogeneous mix consisting of patients in very different clinical situations. Can we expand our experience for further twin prevention to women of older age and to cycles of higher rank without a significant drop in pregnancy rates? Can we extend it to more cryopreservation cycles? To have an idea of future target groups for increased application of SET, we analysed the remaining twins after double-embryo transfer (DET), and from these data we suggest expanding the eSET policy to women < 38 years of age until the third cycle and to cryopreservation cycles.
引用
收藏
页码:843 / 846
页数:4
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] Sanitary control in bovine embryo transfer - How far should we go? A review
    Van Soom, A.
    Imberechts, H.
    Delahaut, Ph.
    Thiry, E.
    Van Roy, V.
    Walravens, K.
    Roels, S.
    Saegerman, C.
    [J]. VETERINARY QUARTERLY, 2007, 29 (01) : 2 - 17
  • [2] SBRT for metastatic disease: how far can and should we go?
    Dahele, M.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 119 : S190 - S190
  • [3] Sedation in the emergency department: how far can and should we go?
    Cheron, G.
    Brissaud, O.
    Wille, C.
    Chappuy, H.
    [J]. ARCHIVES DE PEDIATRIE, 2007, 14 (06): : 732 - 734
  • [4] Intensifying dialysis: how far should we go and at what cost?
    Annemans, Lieven
    [J]. NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2009, 24 (04) : 1077 - 1078
  • [5] Robotics and on-board autonomy: For what and how far can we go?
    Wimmer, W
    [J]. SPACE ROBOTICS (SPRO'98), 1999, : 51 - 57
  • [6] Extra-abdominal cytoreductive techniques in ovarian cancer: how far can (should) we go?
    Kahn, Ryan M.
    Chang, Suk-Joon
    Chi, Dennis S.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2024, 34 (03) : 379 - 385
  • [7] Single-reference dynamics of strongly correlated systems: How far can we go?
    Barbatti, Mario
    [J]. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2017, 253
  • [8] WHAT ABOUT ME? HOW FAR DO WE GO IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CHILD IN ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY
    Ludlow, Karinne
    [J]. QUT LAW REVIEW, 2006, 6 (02): : 214 - 229
  • [9] Accountability to Africa's Children: How Far Have We Come and What Can We Do About It?
    Bequele, Assefa
    Mekonen, Yehualashet
    [J]. CHILD INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2018, 11 (02) : 355 - 382
  • [10] Accountability to Africa’s Children: How Far Have We Come and What Can We Do About It?
    Assefa Bequele
    Yehualashet Mekonen
    [J]. Child Indicators Research, 2018, 11 : 355 - 382