Impact of assisted reproductive technology on the incidence of multiple-gestation infants: A population perspective

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 103, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 179-183

  Scholten, Irma ^a   Chambers, Georgina M ^b   Van Loendersloot, Laura ^a   Van Der Veen, Fulco ^a   Repping, Sjoerd ^a   Gianotten, Judith ^c   Hompes, Peter G A ^d   Ledger, William ^e   Mol, Ben W J ^f  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology ^*  (Netherlands)

^d VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assisted reproductive technology; Multiple pregnancies; Outcome measure; Single embryo transfer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BELGIUM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENMARK; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INFANT; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIPLE GESTATION INFANT; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; NETHERLANDS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUTH KOREA; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; ADOLESCENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EUROPE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION;

ADOLESCENT; EUROPE; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY, MULTIPLE; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; SINGLE EMBRYO TRANSFER; SPERM INJECTIONS, INTRACYTOPLASMIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84924412216     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: 15565653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.033     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Schieve LA, Peterson HB, Meikle SF, Jeng G, Danel I, Burnett NM, et al. Live-birth rates and multiple-birth risk using in vitro fertilization. J Am Med Assoc 1999;282:1832-8.
2. Pinborg A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005;11:575-93.
3. Ledger WL, Anumba D, Marlow N, Thomas CM, Wilson EC. The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. BJOG 2006;113:21-5.
4. Chambers GM, Chapman MG, Grayson N, Shanahan M, Sullivan EA. Babies born after ART treatment cost more than non-ART babies: a cost analysis of inpatient birth-admission costs of singleton and multiple gestation pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2007;22:3108-15.
5. Henderson J, Hockley C, Petrou S, Goldacre M, Davidson L. Economic implications of multiple births: inpatient hospital costs in the first 5 years of life. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F542-5.
6. Lukassen HG, Schonbeck 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.
7. Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Van de Meerssche M, Valkenburg M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2581-7.
8. Chambers GM, Wang YA, Chapman MG, Hoang VP, Sullivan EA, Abdalla HI, et al. What can we learn from a decade of promoting safe embryo transfer practices? A comparative analysis of policies and outcomes in the UK and Australia, 2001-2010. Hum Reprod 2013;28:1679-86.
9. Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:107-20.
10. Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, de Klerk C, Polinder S, Beckers NG, Klinkert ER, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised noninferiority trial. Lancet 2007;369:743-9.
11. Kjellberg AT, Carlsson P, Bergh C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod 2006;21:210-6.
12. Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, Zielhuis GA, Adang EM, Scheenjes E, et al. Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20:702-8.
13. Kresowik JD, Stegmann BJ, Sparks AE, Ryan GL, van Voorhis BJ. Five-years of a mandatory single-embryo transfer (mSET) policy dramatically reduces twinning rate without lowering pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 2011;96:1367-9.
14. Tiitinen A, Unkila-Kallio L, Halttunen M, Hyden-Granskog C. Impact of elective single embryo transfer on the twin pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1449-53.
15. Land JA, Evers JL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Defining outcome in ART: a gordian knot of safety, efficacy and quality. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1046-8.
16. Nyboe AA, Gianaroli L, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2000. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2004;19:490-503.
17. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Kupka M, Bhattacharya S, de Mouzon J, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2318-31.
18. Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Lancaster P, Nygren KG, Sullivan E, Zegers-Hochschild F. World collaborative report on in vitro fertilization, 2000. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1586-622.
19. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology. Preliminary global ART data for 2008. Istanbul, Turkey: European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology annual scientific meeting; 2012.
20. Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, Chapman MG, Adamson GD. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2281-94.
21. de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2010;25:1851-62.
22. Wang YA, Dean JH, Badgery-Parker T, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2006. Sydney: National Perinatal Statistics Unit, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2008.
23. CDC and ASRM/SART 2006 assisted reproductive technology success rate: national summary and fertility clinics reports. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2008.
24. Central Statistical Bureau 2013. The Netherlands.
25. Denmark Statistics 2013. Denmark.
26. UK National Statistics 2013. United Kingdom.
27. Statistics Belgium 2013. Belgium.
28. Statistics Korea 2013. South Korea.
29. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013. Australia.
30. United States Census Bureau 2013. United States.
31. Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, d'Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2014;29:2099-113.
32. Macaldowie A, Wang YA, Chambers GM, Sullivan E. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2010. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2011.
33. CDC. ASRM 2010 assisted reproductive technology national summary report. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2012.
34. McClamrock HD, Jones HW Jr, Adashi EY. Ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination at the quarter centennial: implications for the multiple births epidemic. Fertil Steril 2012;97:802-9.
35. Schieve LA, Devine O, Boyle CA, Petrini JR, Warner L. Estimation of the contribution of nonassisted reproductive technology ovulation stimulation fertility treatments to US singleton and multiple births. Am J Epidemiol 2009;170:1396-407.
36. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology. Preliminary global ART data for 2009. London, United Kingdom: European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology annual scientific meeting; 2013.
37. Tiitinen A. Prevention of multiple pregnancies in infertility treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2012;26:829-40.