Embryology Research - Stem Cells, Reproduction, Transplants, Cloning

Embryology Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Embryology, including details on stem cells, reproduction, transplants, cloning.


Embryology Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Embryology

Books on Embryology

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



Birthweight of singletons after assisted reproduction is higher after single- than after double-embryo transfer.

De Sutter P, Delbaere I, Gerris J, Verstraelen H, Goetgeluk S, Van der Elst J, Temmerman M, Dhont M

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Gent, Belgium. petra.desutter@ugent.be

BACKGROUND: Single-embryo transfer (SET) has proven efficient in reducing multiple pregnancy rates after assisted reproduction technologies (ART). This study compares outcome of singletons after SET and double-embryo transfer (DET). METHODS: We studied 404 SET and 431 DET patients, who delivered a singleton child of >500 g after fresh embryo transfer in a first, second or third cycle. Preterm birth and low birthweight incidences and gestational age and birthweight were compared between both groups. Adjustments were made for maternal age, parity, cycle rank number, treatment indication, ART method, embryo characteristics and sex of the child. RESULTS: Singletons born after DET have a significantly lower birthweight than that after SET (3204.3 +/-617.5 g versus 3324.6+/-509.7 g , P<0.01). Also preterm birth (<37 weeks) [odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.94] and low birthweight (<2500 g) (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.86-6.12) are significantly more common in DET singletons. CONCLUSIONS: Singleton birth after SET is advantageous compared with DET. This sheds new light on the reasons why singleton births following ART do worse than spontaneously conceived singletons in IVF programs, where double- or multiple-embryo transfer is standard.

Published 25 September 2006 in Hum Reprod, 21(10): 2633-7.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Embryology Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Embryology Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (September)
  Issue 2 (October)
  Issue 3 (November)
  Issue 4 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)



Embryology Books

How You Were Born

How You Were Born