Multiple pregnancies after ART and how to minimize their occurrence

Current Women's Health Reviews

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 289-296

  Kovacs, Peter ^a  

^a Kaali Institute IVF Center   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Embryo morphology; IVF; Metabolomics; Perinatal outcome; Preimplantation genetic screening; Proteomics; Single embryo transfer; Time lapse monitoring

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION; METABOLOMICS; MONITORING; MORPHOLOGY; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; NEWBORN PERIOD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERINATAL PERIOD; PREIMPLANTATION EMBRYO; PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; TIME LAPSE EMBRYO MONITORING;

EID: 84875314622     PISSN: 15734048     EISSN: 18756581     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1573404811208040003     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Steptoe PCV, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2: 366.
2. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, et al. Consortium for the European society of Human Reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 2571-84.
3. Sunderam S, Chang J, Flowers L, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Assisted reproductive technology surveillance-United States, 2006. MMWR Surevill Summ. 2009; 58: 1-25.
4. Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. 2012; 97: 825-34.
5. Krotz S, Fajardo J, Ghandi S, Patel A, Keith LG. Hypertensive disease in twin pregnancies: a review. Twin Res 2002; 5: 8-14.
6. Adamson D, Baker V. Multiple births from assisted reproductive technologies: a challenge that must be met. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 517-22.
7. Elster N. Less is more: the risks of multiple births. The Institute for Science, Law, and Technology working Group on Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 617-23.
8. Olivennes F. Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART. Double trouble: yes a twin pregnancy is an adverse outcome. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1663-5.
9. Seoud MA, Toner JP, Kruithoff C, Muasher SJ. Outcome of twin, triplet, and quadruplet in vitro fertilization pregnancies: the Norfolk experience. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 825-34.
10. Lukassen HG, Schönbeck Y, Adang EM, Braat DD, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA. Cost analysis of singleton versus twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1240-6.
11. Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance-United States, 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007; 56: 1-22.
12. Skora D, Frankfurter D. Adverse perinatal events associated with ART. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30: 84-91.
13. Pinborg A. IVF/ ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11: 575-93.
14. Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Rebar RW, Tasca RJ. Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes: executive summary of a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 967-77.
15. Rufat P, Olivennes F, de Mouzon J, Dehan M, Frydman R. Task force report on outcome of pregnancies and children conceived by in vitro fertilization (France 1987 to 1989). Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 324-30.
16. Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 1144-53.
17. Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Crougham MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a metaanalysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 551-63.
18. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome in singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2004; 328: 261.
19. Basso O, Baid DD. Infertility and preterm delivery, birthweight, and Cesarean section: a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2478-84.
20. Jaques AM, Amor DJ, Baker HW, et al. Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcome in subfertile women conceiving without assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2674-9.
21. Hayashi M, Nakai A, Satoh S, Matsuda Y. Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies may be related to maternal factors associated with infertility rather than the type of assisted reproductive technology procedure used. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 922-8.
22. Kapiteijn K, de Bruijn CS, de Boer E, et al. Does subfertility explain the risk of poor perinatal outcome after IVF and ovarian hyperstimulation? Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 3228-34.
23. He D, Jiang F. Meta-analysis of letrozole versus clomiphene citrate in polycystic ovary syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 23: 91-6.
24. Denkert T, Kremer JA, Cohlen BJ, et al. A randomized clinical trial of clomiphene citrate versus low dose recombinant FSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles for unexplained and male subfertility. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 792-7.
25. Cantineau AE, Cohlen BJ, Heineman MJ. Ovarian stimulation protocols (anti-oestrogens, gonadotrophins with and without GnRH agonists/ antagonists) for intrauterine insemination (IUI) in women with subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (2): CD005356.
26. Goverde AJ, Lambalk CB, McDonell J, Schats R, Homburg R, Vermeiden JP. Further considerations on natural or mild hyperstimulation cycles for intrauterine insemination treatment: effects on pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3141-6.
27. McClamrock HD, Jones Jr HW, Adashi EY. Ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination at the quarter centennial: implications for the multiple birth epidemic. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 802-9.
28. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2392-402.
29. Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 551-5.
30. Mullin CM, Fino ME, Talebian S, Krey LC, Licciardi F, Grifo JA. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes in elective single blastocyst transfer versus double blastocyst transfer stratified by age. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 1837-43.
31. Styer AK, Wright DL, Wolkovich AM, Veiga C, Toth TL. Singleblastocyst transfer decreases twin gestation without affecting pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 1702-8.
32. McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. BMJ 2010; 341: 6945.
33. Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 936-45.
34. Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, Khandwala M. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 324-31.
35. De Sutter P, Delbaere I, Gerris J, et al. Birthweight of singletons after assisted reproduction is higher after single-than after doubleembryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 2633-7.
36. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer 2012; 97: 835-42.
37. Alpha scientists in reproductive medicine and ESHRE special interest group of embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessments: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 1270-83.
38. Kovalevsky G, Patrizio P. High rates of embryo wastage with use of assisted reproductive technology: a look at the trends between 1995 and 2001 in the United States. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 325-30.
39. Tesarik J, Junca AM, Hazout A, et al. Embryos with high implantation potential after intracytoplasmic sperm injection can be recognized by a simple, non-invasive examination of pronuclear morphology. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1396-9.
40. Lan KC, Huang FJ, Lin YC, et al. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1299-306.
41. Nagy ZP, Dozotsev D, Diamond M, et al. Pronuclear morphology evaluation with subsequent evaluation of embryo morphology significantly increases implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 67-74.
42. Shoukir Y, Campana A, Farley T, Sakkas D. Early cleavage of in vitro fertilized human embryos to the 2-cell stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality and viability. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1531-6.
43. Baczkowski T, Kurzawa R, Głabowski W. Methods of embryo scoring in in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol 2004; 4: 5-22.
44. Borini A, Lagalla C, Cattoli M, et al. Predictive factors for embryo implantation potential. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10: 653-68.
45. Fanchin R, Ayoubi JM, Righini C, et al. Uterine contractility decreases at the time of blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 1115-9.
46. Papanikolau EG, D'haeseleer E, Verheyen G, et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavagestage transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of embryo culture. A randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3198-203.
47. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 Jul 11; 7: CD002118.
48. Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, et al. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24: 614-20.
49. Fragouli E, Wells D. Aneuploidy screening for embryo selection. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30: 289-301.
50. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 9-17.
51. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2849-58.
52. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. Comprehensive chromosome screening and embryo selection: moving towards single euploid blastocyst transfer. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30: 236-42.
53. Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sánchez-García J, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 953-8.
54. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012; 5: 24.
55. Schoolcraft WB, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Gustofson RL, Scott RT Jr., Katz-Jaffe MG. Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) with vitrification results in improved clinical outcome in women >35 yrs: a randomized control trial. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: S1.
56. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. Blastocyst euploid selective transfer (BEST): an RCT of comprehensive chromosome screening-single embryo transfer (CCS-SET) vs double embryo transfer (DET)-equivalent pregnancy rates, eliminated twins. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: S49.
57. Gebhardt KM, Feil DK, Dunning KR, Lane M, Russell DL. Human cumulus cell gene expression as a biomarker of pregnancy after single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 47-52.
58. van Montfoort AP, Geraedts JP, Dumoulin JC, Stassen AP, Evers JL, Ayoubi TA. Differential gene expression in cumulus cells as a prognostic indicator of embryo viability: a microarray analysis. Mol Hum Reprod 2008; 14: 157-68.
59. Nagy ZP, Sakkas D, Behr B. Non-invasive assessment of embryo viability by metabolomic profiling of culture media ("metabolomics"). Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 502-7.
60. Botros L, Sakkas D, Seli E. Metabolomics and its application for non-invasive embryo assessment in IVF. Mol Hum Reprod 2008; 14: 679-90.
61. Seli E, Vergouw CG, Morita H, Botros L, Roos P, Lambalk CB. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for noninvasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 535-42.
62. Seli E, Sakkas D, Scott R, Kwok JS, Rosendahl S, Burns DH. Non-Invasive metabolomic profiling of human embryo culture media using Raman and near infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 1350-7.
63. Katz-Jaffe MG, Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Proteomic analysis of individual human embryos to identify novel biomarkers of development and viability. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 101-7.
64. Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 1277-85.
65. Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 385-91.
66. Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, Perez-Cano I, Munoz M, Meseguer M. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25: 371-81.
67. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing N, Remohi J. the use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 2658-71.
68. Pribenszky C, Losonczi E, Molnar M, et al. Prediction of in-vitro developmental competence of early cleavage-stage mouse embryos with compact time-lapse monitoring. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 20: 371-9.
69. Pribenszky C, Matyas S, Kovacs P, Losonczi E, Zadori J, Vajta G. Pregnancy achieved by transfer of a single blastocyst selected by time-lapse monitoring. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21: 533-6.
70. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Grondahl ML, Kesmodel US, Ingerslev HJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29: 565-72.