Single or double embryo transfer? Decision-making process in patients participating in an oocyte donation program

References

• Land JA, Evers JLH. Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:455–457.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, et al. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:911–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Lacey S, Davies M, Homan G, et al. Factors and perceptions that influence women’s decisions to have a single embryo transferred. Reprod BioMed. 2007;15:526–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Højgaard A, Ottosen LDM, Kesmodel U, et al. Patient attitudes towards twin pregnancies and single embryo transfer - A questionnaire study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2673–2678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton CR, McBride J, Feyles V, et al. Factors affecting patients' attitudes toward single- and multiple-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:269–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Peperstraten AM, Kreuwel IAM, Hermens RPMG, et al. Determinants of the choice for single or double embryo transfer in twin prone couples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:226–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderström-Anttila V, Vilska S, Mäkinen S, et al. Elective single embryo transfer yields good delivery rates in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1858–1863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clua E, Tur R, Coroleu B, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer in oocyte donation programmes: should it be the rule? Reprod Biomed. 2012;25:642–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clua E, Tur R, Coroleu B, et al. Is it justified to transfer two embryos in oocyte donation? A pilot randomized clinical trial. Reprod Biomed. 2015;31:154–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clua E, Meler E, Rodríguez D, et al. Obstetric and perinatal complications in an oocyte donation programme. Is it time to limit the number of embryos to transfer? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;3590:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Simchen MJ, Shulman A, Wiser A, et al. The aged uterus: multifetal pregnancy outcome after ovum donation in older women. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2500–2503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malchau SS, Loft A, Larsen EC, et al. Perinatal outcomes in 375 children born after oocyte donation: a Danish national cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1637–1643.e3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guesdon E, Vincent-Rohfritsch A, Bydlowski S, et al. Oocyte donation recipients of very advanced age: perinatal complications for singletons and twins. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:89–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilska S, Unkila-Kallio L, Punamäki R-L, et al. Mental health of mothers and fathers of twins conceived via assisted reproduction treatment: a 1-year prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:367–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinzler WL, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM. Medical and economic effects of twin gestations. J Soc Gynecol Invest. 2000;7:321–327.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lukassen HGM, Schönbeck Y, Adang EMM, et al. Cost analysis of singleton versus twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1240–1246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjellberg AT, Carlsson P, Bergh C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:210–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matorras R, Hernández J. Estudio y tratamiento de la pareja estéril: Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Fertilidad, con la colaboración de la Asociación Española para el Estudio de la Biología de la Reproducción, de la Asociación Española de Andrología y de la Sociedad Es. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Min JK, Hughes E, Young D, et al. Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization. J obstetr gynaecol Can. 2010;32:363–377.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:44–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESHRE. Prevention of twin pregnancies after IVF/ICSI by single embryo transfer. ESHRE Campus Course Report. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:790–800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan GL, Sparks AET, Sipe CS, et al. A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:354–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope N, Rombauts L. Can an educational DVD improve the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer? A randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:489–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perestelo-Pérez L, Pérez-Ramos J, Rivero-Santana A, et al. Manual con criterios de evaluación y validación de las Herramientas de Ayuda para la Toma de Decisiones. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud. Línia de desarrollos metodológicos de la Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías y Prestaciones del SNS, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Solé M, Santaló J, Boada M, et al. How does vitrification affect oocyte viability in oocyte donation cycles? A prospective study to compare outcomes achieved with fresh versus vitrified sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2087–2092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez F, Boada M, Coroleu B, et al. A prospective trial comparing oocyte donor ovarian response and recipient pregnancy rates between suppression with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) alone and dual suppression with a contraceptive vaginal ring and GnRH. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2121–2125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD, et al. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:661–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds MA, Schieve LA, Jeng G, et al. Does insurance coverage decrease the risk for multiple births associated with assisted reproductive technology? Fertil Steril. 2003;80:16–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin D, Brown L, Feinn R, et al. Impact of an educational intervention and insurance coverage on patients' preferences to transfer multiple embryos. Reprod Biomed. 2012;25:204–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S, et al. Preferences of subfertile women regarding elective single embryo transfer: additional in vitro fertilization cycles are acceptable, lower pregnancy rates are not. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1006–1009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiddelers AAA, Nieman FHM, Dumoulin JCM, et al. During IVF treatment patient preference shifts from singletons towards twins but only a few patients show an actual reversal of preference. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2092–2100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blennborn M, Nilsson S, Hillervik C, et al. The couple's decision-making in IVF: one or two embryos at transfer? Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1292–1297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coetzee K, Stewart B, Peek J, et al. Acceptance of single-embryo transfer by patients. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:207–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen MA, Lindheim SR, Sauer MV, et al. Donor age is paramount to success in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2755–2758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noyes N, Hampton BS, Berkeley A, et al. Factors useful in predicting the success of oocyte donation: a 3-year retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:92–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar