Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T17:32:19.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 20 - Single Embryo Transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2019

Jane A. Stewart
Affiliation:
Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Get access

Summary

Worldwide 95% of the adults express their desire for a child. Between 8 and 12% of reproductive-aged couples worldwide have problems conceiving. The probable global average for infertility is estimated to affect 9% of women. In some regions of the world, the rates of infertility are much higher, reaching up to 30% in some populations [1]. Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in the number of centres offering Assisted Reproduction Techniques (ART). The number of ART cycles performed worldwide has increased clearly over time: a 5–10% increase per annum. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies reported >1,251,881 procedures with ART in their World Report on Assisted Reproductive Technologies for 2007 [2]. This Committee yearly summarises the data collection set from 2,419 of 3,354 (72.1%) known ART clinics in 55 countries. In 2007, in the United Kingdom, availability of ART was estimated to have been at 766 cycles per million inhabitants. Availability of ART treatments varies by country from 12 (Guatemala) to 4,140 (Israel) treatments per million population. The latter is the result of substantial economic support for patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Australia, New Zealand, and European countries, especially northern Europe, also strongly support ART treatments. The overall worldwide delivery rate per fresh aspiration stood at 20.3% in 2007, ranging from 8% to 33%. For frozen-embryo transfer (FET), delivery rates were 18.4%, resulting in a cumulative delivery rate of 25.8%. In the United Kingdom in 2013, a delivery rate of 26% per cycle started was noted [3]. In Europe, the delivery rate after cycle of intrauterine insemination (IUI) with husband’s semen was 8.9% and 13.8% after IUI with donor semen [4].

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Inhorn, MC, Patrizio, P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century., Hum Rep Update 2015; 21: 411–26.Google Scholar
Ishihara, O, Adamson, GD, Dyer, S, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies: World Report on Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Fertil Steril 2007; 103: 402–13.Google Scholar
HFEA Report, Improving outcomes for fertility patients: multiple births 2015. Available online www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Multiple_Births_Report_2015.pdf2015 (Accessed December 2015).Google Scholar
Kupka, MS, Ferraretti, AP, de Mouzon, J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2014; 10: 2099–113.Google Scholar
HFEA Fertility treatment in 2013: trends and figures. Available online www.hfea.gov.uk/9463.html (Accessed December 2015).Google Scholar
Barrington, KJ, Janvier, A. The paediatric consequences of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, with special emphasis on multiple pregnancies Acta Paediatrica. Int J Pediatr. 2013; 102: 340–8.Google Scholar
Henningsen, AA, Wennerholm, UB, Gissler, M. Risk of stillbirth and infant deaths after assisted reproductive technology: a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 1090–6.Google Scholar
Sejbaek, CS, Pinborg, A, Hageman, I. Are repeated assisted reproductive technology treatments and an unsuccessful outcome risk factors for unipolar depression in infertile women? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94: 1048–55.Google Scholar
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Pregnancy outcomes after assisted human reproduction. Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014; 36: 6483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauniaux, E, Ben-Ami, I, Maymon, R. Do assisted-reproduction twin pregnancies require additional antenatal care? Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26: 107–19.Google Scholar
Evron, E, Sheiner, E, Friger, M. Vanishing twin syndrome: is it associated with adverse perinatal outcome? Fertil Steril. 2015; 103: 1209–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with Fertility problems. Clinical Guidelines CG156, 2013, Available online www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156 (Accessed December 2015).Google Scholar
Masoudian, P, Nasr, A, De Nanassy, J et al. Oocyte donation pregnancies and the risk of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214(3): 328–39.Google Scholar
Bodri, D, Kawachiya, S, De Brucker, M, et al. Cumulative success rates following mild IVF in unselected infertile patients: a 3-year, single-centre cohort study. RBM Online 2014; 28: 572–81.Google Scholar
Harbottle, S, Hughes, S, Cutting, R, et al. Elective single embryo transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines. Hum Fertil. 2015; 18: 165183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mantikou, E, Youssef, M, Wely van, M, et al. Embryo culture media and IVF/ICSI success rates: a systematic review. Hum Rep Update. 2014; 19: 210–20.Google Scholar
Swain, JE Decisions for the IVF laboratory: comparative analysis of embryo culture incubators. RBM Online. 2014; 28: 535–47.Google Scholar
Kaser, DJ and Racowsky, C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Hum Rep Update. 2014; 20: 617–31.Google Scholar
Lee, E, Illingworth, P, Wilton, L, et al. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 473–83.Google Scholar
Bolton, V, Leary, C, Harbottle, S, et al. How should we choose the ‘best’ embryo? A commentary on behalf of the British Fertility Society and the Association of Clinical Embryologists. Hum Fertil. 2015; 18: 156164.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil & Steril. 2012; 99: 44–6.Google Scholar
Chambers, GM, Lee, E, Hoang, VP, et al. Hospital utilization, costs and mortality rates during the first 5 years of life: a population study of ART and non-ART singletons. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 601–10.Google Scholar
Chambers, GM, Hoang, VP, Sullivan, EA, et al. The impact of consumer affordability on access to assisted reproductive technologies and embryo transfer practices: an international analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101: 191198.Google Scholar
Youssef, MM, Mantikou, E, van Wely, M. Culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; Issue 11. Art. No.: CD007876. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007876.pub2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neubourg, D, Bogaerts, K, Wyns, C, et al. The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 2709–19.Google Scholar
Dhillon, RK, McLernon, DJ, Smith, PP, et al. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31: 8492.Google Scholar
te Velde, ER, Nieboer, D, Lintsen, AM, et al. Comparison of two models predicting IVF success; the effect of time trends on model performance. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 5764.Google Scholar
Nelson, SM, Lawlor, DA, et al. Predicting live birth, preterm delivery, and low birth weight in infants born from in vitro fertilisation: a prospective study of 144,018 treatment cycles. PLoS Med. 2011; 8(1).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×