Obstetric and neonatal outcome after single embryo transfer

90Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single embryo transfer (SET) pregnancies practically lack vanishing twins and may be associated with improved neonatal outcome. Our objective was to compare the obstetric and neonatal outcome of SET singletons with the outcome of singletons following double embryo transfer (DET) and spontaneous conception. METHODS: A 7-year (1997-2003) cohort of fresh SET (n = 269) and DET (n = 230, including 25 vanishing twins) cycles resulting in singleton birth at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland, was linked to the Finnish Medical Birth Register and the obstetric and neonatal outcome data compared with that from 15 037 spontaneously conceived singleton pregnancies. RESULTS: The obstetric and neonatal outcome of the SET group was comparable to that in the DET group. Compared with the comparison cohort, gestational hypertension (P = 0.005), placenta praevia (P < 0.001), preterm contractions (P = 0.01) and maternal hospitalization (P < 0.001) was more typical of women in the SET group. After adjusting for age, parity and socio-economic status the SET pregnancies showed increased risks of Caesarean section [odds ratio (OR) 1.54 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-2.00], preterm birth (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.96-4.16) and low birthweight (OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.19-3.99) compared with the comparison cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that subject- and infertility-related mechanisms other than the number of transferred embryos influence the neonatal outcome of singleton IVF pregnancies. © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Poikkeus, P., Gissler, M., Unkila-Kallio, L., Hyden-Granskog, C., & Tiitinen, A. (2007). Obstetric and neonatal outcome after single embryo transfer. Human Reproduction, 22(4), 1073–1079. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del492

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free