Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 8, 2013 - Issue 4
Journal homepage
1
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

An overview of temporal trends in multiple births after assisted reproductive technology in the USA

Judy E Stern Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA. [email protected]
Pages 357-368 | Published online: 10 Jan 2014

References

  • Jain T, Hornstein MD. To pay or not to pay. Fertil. Steril. 80(1), 27–29 (2003).
  • Jain T, Missmer SA, Hornstein MD. Trends in embryo-transfer practice and in outcomes of the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 350(16), 1639–1645 (2004).
  • Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 97(4), 825–834 (2012).
  • Schieve LA, Devine O, Boyle CA, Petrini JR, Warner L. Estimation of the contribution of non-assisted reproductive technology ovulation stimulation fertility treatments to US singleton and multiple births. Am. J. Epidemiol. 170(11), 1396–1407 (2009).
  • McClamrock HD, Jones HW Jr, Adashi EY. Ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination at the quarter centennial: implications for the multiple births epidemic. Fertil. Steril. 97(4), 802–809 (2012).
  • Lopata A, Johnston IW, Hoult IJ, Speirs AI. Pregnancy following intrauterine implantation of an embryo obtained by in vitro fertilization of a preovulatory egg. Fertil. Steril. 33(2), 117–120 (1980).
  • Trounson AO, Leeton JF, Wood C, Webb J, Wood J. Pregnancies in humans by fertilization in vitro and embryo transfer in the controlled ovulatory cycle. Science 212(4495), 681–682 (1981).
  • Trounson A, Wood C. In vitro fertilization results, 1979–1982, at Monash University, Queen Victoria, and Epworth Medical Centres. J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transf. 1(1), 42–47 (1984).
  • Edwards RG, Fishel SB, Cohen J et al. Factors influencing the success of in vitro fertilization for alleviating human infertility. J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transf. 1(1), 3–23 (1984).
  • Gronow MJ, Martin MJ, McBain JC, Wein P, Speirs AL, Lopata A. Aspects of multiple embryo transfer. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 442, 381–386 (1985).
  • Elsner CW, Tucker MJ, Sweitzer CL et al. Multiple pregnancy rate and embryo number transferred during in vitro fertilization. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 177(2), 350–355; discussion 355 (1997).
  • Stern JE, Cedars MI, Jain T et al.; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group. Assisted reproductive technology practice patterns and the impact of embryo transfer guidelines in the United States. Fertil. Steril. 88(2), 275–282 (2007).
  • Patrizio P, Bianchi V, Lalioti MD, Gerasimova T, Sakkas D. High rate of biological loss in assisted reproduction: it is in the seed, not in the soil. Reprod. Biomed. Online 14(1), 92–95 (2007).
  • Reynolds MA, Schieve LA. Trends in embryo transfer practices and multiple gestation for IVF procedures in the USA, 1996–2002. Hum. Reprod. 21(3), 694–700 (2006).
  • Gibbons W, Grainger D, Cedars M, Jain T, Klein N, Stern J; SART Research Committee Writing Group. Continuous quality improvement and assisted reproductive technology multiple gestations: some progress, some answers, more questions. Fertil. Steril. 88(2), 301–304 (2007).
  • Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Stern JE, Klein NA, Cedars MI. The effect of early fetal losses on singleton assisted-conception pregnancy outcomes. Fertil. Steril. 91(6), 2578–2585 (2009).
  • Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Stern JE, Klein N, Cedars MI. The effect of early fetal losses on twin assisted-conception pregnancy outcomes. Fertil. Steril. 91(6), 2586–2592 (2009).
  • Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Cedars M, Klein N, Stern JE; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group. Practice patterns and outcomes with the use of single embryo transfer in the United States. Fertil. Steril. 93(2), 490–498 (2010).
  • Aanesen A, Nygren KG, Nylund L. Modified natural cycle IVF and mild IVF: a 10 year Swedish experience. Reprod. Biomed. Online 20(1), 156–162 (2010).
  • Branigan EF, Estes MA. Minimal stimulation IVF using clomiphene citrate and oral contraceptive pill pretreatment for LH suppression. Fertil. Steril. 73(3), 587–590 (2000).
  • Fahy UM, Cahill DJ, Wardle PG, Hull MG. In-vitro fertilization in completely natural cycles. Hum. Reprod. 10(3), 572–575 (1995).
  • US Law: Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA): 42 USC x102–493 (1992).
  • Henne MB, Bundorf MK. The effects of competition on assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Fertil. Steril. 93(6), 1820–1830 (2010).
  • Steiner AZ, Paulson RJ, Hartmann KE. Effects of competition among fertility centers on pregnancy and high-order multiple gestation rates. Fertil. Steril. 83(5), 1429–1434 (2005).
  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Practice Committee Opinion. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. American Society for Assisted Reproductive Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA (1998).
  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Practice Committee Opinion. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. American Society for Assisted Reproductive Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA (1999).
  • 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. 99(1), 44–46 (2013).
  • Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil. Steril. 90(Suppl. 5), S163–164 (2008).
  • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil. Steril. 92(5), 1518–1519 (2009).
  • Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil. Steril. 86(5 Suppl. 1), S51–S52 (2006).
  • Practice Committee, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology the American Society for Reproductive, Medicine. Guidelines on the number of embryos transferred. Fertil. Steril. 82(3), 773–774 (2004).
  • Adamson D, Ginsburg E. The octuplets tragedy. Obstet. Gynecol. 113(5), 970–971 (2009).
  • Lane M, Mitchell M, Cashman KS, Feil D, Wakefield S, Zander-Fox DL. To QC or not to QC: the key to a consistent laboratory? Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 20(1), 23–32 (2008).
  • Magli MC, Van den Abbeel E, Lundin K, Royere D, Van der Elst J, Gianaroli L; Committee of the Special Interest Group on Embryology. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Hum. Reprod. 23(6), 1253–1262 (2008).
  • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive, Medicine Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive, Technology. Revised guidelines for human embryology and andrology laboratories. Fertil. Steril. 86(5 Suppl. 1), S57–S72 (2006).
  • Henig RM. Pandora’s Baby: How the First Test Tube Babies Sparked the Reproductive Revolution. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston & NY, USA (2004).
  • Quinn P, Kerin JF, Warnes GM. Improved pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization with the use of a medium based on the composition of human tubal fluid. Fertil. Steril. 44(4), 493–498 (1985).
  • Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Stevens J, Hesla J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 13(12), 3434–3440 (1998).
  • Jones GM, Trounson AO, Gardner DK, Kausche A, Lolatgis N, Wood C. Evolution of a culture protocol for successful blastocyst development and pregnancy. Hum. Reprod. 13(1), 169–177 (1998).
  • Summers MC, Biggers JD. Chemically defined media and the culture of mammalian preimplantation embryos: historical perspective and current issues. Hum. Reprod. Update 9(6), 557–582 (2003).
  • Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil. Steril. 81(3), 551–555 (2004).
  • Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N. Engl. J. Med. 354(11), 1139–1146 (2006).
  • Blake D, Proctor M, Johnson N, Olive D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2, CD002118 (2002).
  • Kissin DM, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA. Multiple-birth risk associated with IVF and extended embryo culture: USA, 2001. Hum. Reprod. 20(8), 2215–2223 (2005).
  • Wright V, Schieve LA, Vahratian A, Reynolds MA. Monozygotic twinning associated with day 5 embryo transfer in pregnancies conceived after IVF. Hum. Reprod. 19(8), 1831–1836 (2004).
  • Kawachiya S, Bodri D, Shimada N, Kato K, Takehara Y, Kato O. Blastocyst culture is associated with an elevated incidence of monozygotic twinning after single embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 95(6), 2140–2142 (2011).
  • Doherty AS, Mann MR, Tremblay KD, Bartolomei MS, Schultz RM. Differential effects of culture on imprinted H19 expression in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Biol. Reprod. 62(6), 1526–1535 (2000).
  • Market Velker BA, Denomme MM, Mann MRW. Loss of genomic imprinting in mouse embryos with fast rates of preimplantation development in culture. Biol. Reprod. 86(5), 143, 141–116 (2012).
  • Munné S, Fischer J, Warner A, Chen S, Zouves C, Cohen J; Referring Centers PGD Group. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multicenter study. Fertil. Steril. 85(2), 326–332 (2006).
  • Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(1), 9–17 (2007).
  • Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sánchez-García J et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil. Steril. 95(3), 953–958 (2011).
  • Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil. Steril. 94(5), 1700–1706 (2010).
  • Forman EJ, Hong KH, Treff NR, Scott RT. Comprehensive chromosome screening and embryo selection: moving toward single euploid blastocyst transfer. Semin. Reprod. Med. 30(3), 236–242 (2012).
  • Bromer JG, Seli E. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 20(3), 234–241 (2008).
  • Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum. Reprod. 27(5), 1277–1285 (2012).
  • Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Ziebe S. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod. Biomed. Online 17(3), 385–391 (2008).
  • Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(3), 236–243 (2009).
  • Stern JE, Brown MB, Luke B et al. Calculating cumulative live-birth rates from linked cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART): data from the Massachusetts SART CORS. Fertil. Steril. 94(4), 1334–1340 (2010).
  • Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E et al. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N. Engl. J. Med. 366(26), 2483–2491 (2012).
  • Gnoth C, Maxrath B, Skonieczny T, Friol K, Godehardt E, Tigges J. Final ART success rates: a 10 years survey. Hum. Reprod. 26(8), 2239–2246 (2011).
  • Domar AD, Smith K, Conboy L, Iannone M, Alper M. A prospective investigation into the reasons why insured United States patients drop out of in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil. Steril. 94(4), 1457–1459 (2010).
  • Rajkhowa M, McConnell A, Thomas GE. Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. Hum. Reprod. 21(2), 358–363 (2006).
  • Jones HW Jr. Total reproductive potential of a single cycle–to include fresh and frozen embryos? Fertil. Steril. 79(4), 1044; author reply 1044 (2003).
  • Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N. Engl. J. Med. 351(23), 2392–2402 (2004).
  • McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: metaanalysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ 341, c6945 (2010).
  • Stern JE, Hickman TN, Kinzer D, Penzias AS, Ball GD, Gibbons WE. Can the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) be used to accurately report clinic total reproductive potential (TRP)? Fertil. Steril. 97(4), 886–889 (2012).
  • Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil. Steril. 99(1), 37–43 (2013).
  • Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, and Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 97(4), 835–842 (2012).
  • Ryan GL, Sparks AE, Sipe CS, Syrop CH, Dokras A, Van Voorhis BJ. 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. 88(2), 354–360 (2007).
  • 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. 96(6), 1367–1369 (2011).
  • Klipstein S, Regan M, Ryley DA, Goldman MB, Alper MM, Reindollar RH. One last chance for pregnancy: a review of 2,705 in vitro fertilization cycles initiated in women age 40 years and above. Fertil. Steril. 84(2), 435–445 (2005).
  • Stern JE, Goldman MB, Hatasaka H, MacKenzie TA, Racowsky C, Surrey ES; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group. Optimizing the number of blastocyst stage embryos to transfer on day 5 or 6 in women 38 years of age and older: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database study. Fertil. Steril. 91(1), 157–166 (2009).
  • Stern JE, Goldman MB, Hatasaka H, MacKenzie TA, Surrey ES, Racowsky C; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group. Optimizing the number of cleavage stage embryos to transfer on day 3 in women 38 years of age and older: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database study. Fertil. Steril. 91(3), 767–776 (2009).
  • Veleva Z, Vilska S, Hydén-Granskog C, Tiitinen A, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Elective single embryo transfer in women aged 36–39 years. Hum. Reprod. 21(8), 2098–2102 (2006).
  • Steinberg ML, Boulet S, Kissin D, Warner L, Jamieson DJ. Elective single embryo transfer trends and predictors of a good perinatal outcome – United States, 1999–2010. Fertil. Steril. 99(7), 1937–1943 (2013).
  • Niinimaki M, Suikkari AM, Makinen S, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Martikainen H. Elective single-embryo transfer in women aged 40–44 years. Hum. Reprod. 28(2), 331–335 (2013).
  • van Peperstraten AM, Nelen WL, Hermens RP et al. Why don’t we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals. Hum. Reprod. 23(9), 2036–2042 (2008).
  • Goldfarb J, Kinzer DJ, Boyle M, Kurit D. Attitudes of in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination couples toward multiple gestation pregnancy and multifetal pregnancy reduction. Fertil. Steril. 65(4), 815–820 (1996).
  • Newton CR, McBride J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Power S. Factors affecting patients’ attitudes toward single- and multiple-embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 87(2), 269–278 (2007).
  • Hope N, Rombauts L. Can an educational DVD improve the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer? A randomized controlled study. Fertil. Steril. 94(2), 489–495 (2010).
  • Coetzee K, Stewart B, Peek J, Hutton JD. Acceptance of single-embryo transfer by patients. Fertil. Steril. 87(1), 207–209 (2007).
  • Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, Taylor V, Bhattacharya S. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod. 19(4), 911–916 (2004).
  • Blennborn M, Nilsson S, Hillervik C, Hellberg D. The couple’s decision-making in IVF: one or two embryos at transfer? Hum. Reprod. 20(5), 1292–1297 (2005).
  • Sullivan EA, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum. Reprod. 28(5), 1375–1390 (2013).
  • Kurosawa K, Masuno M, Kuroki Y. Trends in occurrence of twin births in Japan. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 158A(1), 75–77 (2012).
  • Ooki S. Theoretical model of the relationship between single embryo transfer rate and multiple pregnancy rate in Japan. J. Pregnancy 2012, 620753 (2012).
  • Lawlor DA, Nelson SM. Effect of age on decisions about the numbers of embryos to transfer in assisted conception: a prospective study. Lancet 379(9815), 521–527 (2012).
  • Saldeen P, Sundström P. Would legislation imposing single embryo transfer be a feasible way to reduce the rate of multiple pregnancies after IVF treatment? Hum. Reprod. 20(1), 4–8 (2005).
  • Sundström P, Saldeen P. Cumulative delivery rate in an in vitro fertilization program with a single embryo transfer policy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 88(6), 700–706 (2009).
  • Van Landuyt L, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. New Belgian embryo transfer policy leads to sharp decrease in multiple pregnancy rate. Reprod. Biomed. Online 13(6), 765–771 (2006).
  • Cook JL, Collins J, Buckett W, Racowsky C, Hughes E, Jarvi K. Assisted reproductive technology-related multiple births: Canada in an international context. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 33(2), 159–167 (2011).
  • Robertson JA. Reproductive technology in Germany and the United States: an essay in comparative law and bioethics. Columbia J. Transnat. Law 43, 189–227 (2004).
  • La Sala GB, Villani MT, Nicoli A, Valli B, Iannotti F, Blickstein I. The effect of legislation on outcomes of assisted reproduction technology: lessons from the 2004 Italian law. Fertil. Steril. 89(4), 854–859 (2008).
  • Kutlu P, Atvar O, Vanlioglu OF et al. Effect of the new legislation and single-embryo transfer policy in Turkey on assisted reproduction outcomes: preliminary results. Reprod. Biomed. Online 22(2), 208–214 (2011).
  • Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N. Engl. J. Med. 347(9), 661–666 (2002).
  • Reynolds MA, Schieve LA, Jeng G, Peterson HB. Does insurance coverage decrease the risk for multiple births associated with assisted reproductive technology? Fertil. Steril. 80(1), 16–23 (2003).
  • Martin JR, Bromer JG, Sakkas D, Patrizio P. Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a U.S. perspective. Fertil. Steril. 95(3), 964–969 (2011).
  • Jones CA, Gray L, Liu K. Fertility treatment decision-making: the effect of insurance coverage for fertility medications. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 34(11), 1066–1072 (2012).
  • 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. Online 25(2), 204–208 (2012).
  • Stillman RJ, Richter KS, Banks NK, Graham JR. Elective single embryo transfer: a 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil. Steril. 92(6), 1895–1906 (2009).
  • Bromer JG, Ata B, Seli M, Lockwood CJ, Seli E. Preterm deliveries that result from multiple pregnancies associated with assisted reproductive technologies in the USA: a cost analysis. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 23(3), 168–173 (2011).
  • Reindollar RH, Regan MM, Neumann PJ et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate optimal treatment for unexplained infertility: the fast track and standard treatment (FASTT) trial. Fertil. Steril. 94(3), 888–899 (2010).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.