Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Jul;178:192-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.04.009. Epub 2014 Apr 19.

Randomised clinical trial comparing elective single-embryo transfer followed by single-embryo cryotransfer versus double embryo transfer.

Author information

1
U. Reproducción, UGC de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (IIBG), Granada, Spain; Doctorado de Biomedicina Regenerativa de la Universidad de Granada, Spain. Electronic address: marisalopezregalado@gmail.com.
2
U. Reproducción, UGC de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (IIBG), Granada, Spain.
3
Instituto de Biopatología y Medicina Regenerativa (IBIMER), Universidad de Granada, Spain.
4
U. Reproducción, UGC de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (IIBG), Granada, Spain; Banco de Semen CEIFER, Granada, Spain; Centro MasVida Reproducción, Sevilla, Spain.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To analyze the impact of the eSET followed by single-embryo cryotransfer versus double embryo transfer in older women (<38 years) without taking into account embryo quality.

STUDY DESIGN:

This is a prospective randomised clinical trial performed on 194 couples attempting a first IVF cycle in a Public Hospital in Spain. The women in Group 1 received eSET plus a single-embryo cryotransfer, and those in Group 2 received a double embryo transfer (DET).

RESULTS:

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the cumulative live birth delivery rate in the eSET group was similar to the results obtained for the DET group (45.2% vs. 41.8%; p = 0.60). The rate of multiple gestation was significantly lower in the eSET group than in the DET group (0% vs. 26.4%; p < 0.05). The findings obtained in the per-protocol analysis were similar to those obtained in the intention-to-treat analysis. The per-protocol analysis revealed no significant differences in the rate of implantation (29.8% in eSET vs. 29.7% in DET; p = 0.98), in cumulative pregnancy rates per transfer (49.1% in eSET vs. 46.9% in DET; p = 0.80) or in the cumulative live birth delivery rate (38.6% in eSET vs. 42.2% in DET; p = 0.69). In the cycles with eSET, there were no twin pregnancies (0% in eSET vs. 27.6 in DET; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

For women aged under 38 years with good prognosis, without taking embryo quality as a criterion for inclusion, an eSET policy can be applied, achieving acceptable cumulative clinical pregnancy rates and birth rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01909570.

KEYWORDS:

Clinical pregnancy rate; Elective single-embryo transfer; Vitrification

PMID:
24798072
DOI:
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.04.009
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center