Cumulative live birth rate after two single frozen embryo transfers (eSFET) versus a double frozen embryo transfer (DFET) with cleavage stage embryos: a retrospective cohort study

ESHRE guideline: number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION

Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).

Accumulated Vitrified Embryos Could Be a Method for Increasing Pregnancy Rates in Patients with Poor Ovarian Response

We aimed to assess the efficacy of accumulated embryo transfer (ACC-ET) through several controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COS) cycles to increase the rates of pregnancy in patients with poor ovarian response (POR). We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 588 patients with POR under 43-years old who underwent embryo transfer from January 2010 to December 2015. We compared the pregnancy rate (PR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and live birth rate (LBR) between ACC-ET (frozen-thawed: 47; fresh + frozen-thawed: 24) group (n = 71) and fresh ET groups (n = 517). Characteristics of ACC-ET patients were similar to those of fresh ET groups (Age: 38.1 ± 3.5 vs. 38.2 ± 3.7, p = 0.88; Anti Müllerian Hormone (AMH; ng/mL): 0.5 ± 0.4 vs. 0.6 ± 0.6, p = 0.38; follicle stimulating hormone (FSH: mIU/mL): 11.9 ± 8.0 vs. 10.8 ± 9.0, p = 0.35). The total number of transferred embryos (3.1 ± 0.9 vs. 1.5 ± 0.7, p = 0.00), PR (29.6% (21/71) vs. 18.8% (97/517), p = 0.040), and CPR (23.5% (16/68) vs. 14.0% (71/508) p = 0.047) were significantly higher in the ACC-ET group than in the fresh ET group. In addition, PR, CPR, and LBR increased with the number of ET in the fresh ET group. However, there were no significant differences observed in LBR between ACC-ET and fresh ET groups (14.9% (10/67) vs. 9.8% (50/508), p = 0.203). From our knowledge, there is no clinical evidence reported to prove that transfer of multiple embryos of adequate quality obtained through multiple cycles can compensate for the limited number of retrieved oocytes from POR patients. We concluded that ACC-ET from several COS cycles could be an alternative method to increase PR and CPR in <43-year-old patients with POR.

Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence referring to the trade-offs between the benefits and risks of single embryo transfer (SET) versus double embryo transfer (DET) following assisted reproduction technology are insufficient, especially for those women with a defined embryo quality or advanced age.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched based on established search strategy from inception through February 2021. Pre-specified primary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and multiple pregnancy rate (MPR). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled by a random-effects model using R version 4.1.0.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies (14 randomized controlled trials and 71 observational studies) were eligible. Compared with DET, SET decreased the probability of a live birth (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71-0.85, P < 0.001, n = 62), and lowered the rate of multiple pregnancy (0.05, 0.04-0.06, P < 0.001, n = 45). In the sub-analyses of age stratification, both the differences of LBR (0.87, 0.54-1.40, P = 0.565, n = 4) and MPR (0.34, 0.06-2.03, P = 0.236, n = 3) between SET and DET groups became insignificant in patients aged ≥40 years. No significant difference in LBR for single GQE versus two embryos of mixed quality [GQE + PQE (non-good quality embryo)] (0.99, 0.77-1.27, P = 0.915, n = 8), nor any difference of MPR in single PQE versus two PQEs (0.23, 0.04-1.49, P = 0.123, n = 6). Moreover, women who conceived through SET were associated with lower risks of poor outcomes, including cesarean section (0.64, 0.43-0.94), antepartum haemorrhage (0.35, 0.15-0.82), preterm birth (0.25, 0.21-0.30), low birth weight (0.20, 0.16-0.25), Apgar1 < 7 rate (0.12, 0.02-0.93) or neonatal intensive care unit admission (0.30, 0.14-0.66) than those following DET.

CONCLUSIONS

In women aged < 40 years or if any GQE is available, SET should be incorporated into clinical practice. While in the absence of GQEs, DET may be preferable. However, for elderly women aged ≥40 years, current evidence is not enough to recommend an appropriate number of embryo transfer. The findings need to be further confirmed.

Effectiveness and Safety of Two Consecutive Cycles of Single Embryo Transfer Compared With One Cycle of Double Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To date, evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of two consecutive cycles of single embryo transfer (2SETs) compared with one cycle of double embryo transfer (DET) has been inadequate, particularly considering infertile women with different prognostic factors. This study aimed to comprehensively summarize the evidence by comparing 2SETs with DET.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, ClinicalTrails.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to March 22, 2022. Peer-reviewed, English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) comparing the outcomes of 2SETs with DET in infertile women with their own oocytes and embryos were included. Two authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used for pooling RCTs, and a Bayesian design-adjusted model was conducted to synthesize the results from both RCTs and OS.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies were finally included. Compared with the DET, 2SETs were associated with a similar cumulative live birth rate (LBR; 48.24% vs. 48.91%; OR, 0.97; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.89-1.13, τ^{2 =} 0.1796; four RCTs and six observational studies; 197,968 women) and a notable lower cumulative multiple birth rate (MBR; 0.87% vs. 17.72%; OR, 0.05; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.10, τ^{2 =} 0.1036; four RCTs and five observational studies; 197,804 women). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant increase in cumulative LBR (OR, 1.33; 95% CrI, 1.29-1.38, τ^{2 =} 0) after two consecutive cycles of single blastocyst transfer compared with one cycle of double blastocyst transfer. Moreover, a lower risk of cesarean section, antepartum hemorrhage, preterm birth, low birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission but a higher gestational age at birth and birth weight were found in the 2SETs group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the DET strategy, 2SETs result in a similar LBR while simultaneously reducing the MBR and improving maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. The 2SETs strategy appears to be especially beneficial for women aged ≤35 years and for blastocyst transfers.

Effect of Age and Morphology on Live Birth Rate After Cleavage Stage Embryo Transfer

Accurate knowledge of the live birth rate for cleavage stage embryos is essential to determine an appropriate number of embryos to transfer at once. Results from previous studies lack details needed for practical use. This is a mathematical analysis and model building study of day 3 cleavage stage embryo transfers. A total of 996 embryos were transferred in 274 fresh and 83 frozen embryo transfers. Embryo morphology was divided into 4 groups based on number of cells and fragmentation percentage. Each embryo transfer was modeled as an equation equating the sum of the live birth rates of the transferred embryos to the number of live births that resulted. The least squares solution to the system of embryo transfer equations was determined using linear algebra. This analysis was repeated for ages 35 to 42 years old at oocyte retrieval. The best fit live birth rates per embryo in the age group centered on 35 years old were 29%, 13%, 10%, and 9% for embryos in the 8-cell with ≤ 5% fragmentation, 8-cell with > 5% fragmentation, 9-12 cell, and 6-7 cell groups, respectively. Cleavage stage embryos with fewer than 6 cells on day 3 had very low best fit live birth rates close to 0% at age 39 years and were excluded from the primary analysis to prevent overfitting. These live birth rates can be used with a simple embryo transfer model to predict rates of single and multiple gestation prior to a planned cleavage stage embryo transfer.

The impact of a poor quality embryo on the implantation chance of a good quality one when transferred together: A study on double blastocyst transfers

OBJECTIVE

Embryo quality assessment with morphological evaluation remains the first-line method of assessment to select the best embryo for transfer. We aimed to determine if an effect of poor quality embryos on good quality ones exists, whether by a paracrine effect or an adverse endometrial influence, when they are transferred together.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 412 couples, who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in a tertiary IVF center. Single embryo transfer with a good quality embryo and double embryo transfers with a good + poor quality embryo were evaluated. Overall pregnancy (PR) and live birth rates (LBR) were our main outcome measures.

RESULTS

When PR and LBR are compared, there was no statistical significance between single embryo transfer (SET) and double embryo transfer (DET) groups (51.7 % vs 53.7 %, p = 0.620 and 47 % vs 43.1 %, p = 0.117). When the PR and LBRs were compared between SET from poor cohort and DET group, the outcomes were better in DET group (22.1 % vs 53.7 %, p < 0.001 and 22.1 % vs 43.1 %, p < 0.001). The PR and LBRs of SET from good cohort were significantly better than those of DET (64.4 % vs 53.7 %, p < 0.001 and 57.7 % vs 43.1, p < 0.001). When the PR and LBRs of SET from good cohort and SET from poor cohort were compared, better results were obtained in SET from good cohort.

CONCLUSION

The addition of poor quality embryo even is of benefit to the LBR, in the setting of when there is only one good quality blastocyst available for the transfer.

Single and double embryo transfer provide similar live birth rates in frozen cycles

Research question: Do live birth rates (LBRs) differ in frozen cycles of women who received single versus double embryo transfer?Design: Retrospective cohort study including women who underwent their first frozen embryo transfer (FET) in a tertiary referral University Hospital between 2009-2014.Results: 3601 patients were included in the analysis with 1936 (53.8%) having a single embryo transfer (SET) and 1665 (46.2%) having a double embryo transfer (DET). Overall, 657/3601 (18.24%) had a live birth. LBR were similar between SET and DET either for cleavage [100/757 (13.1%) versus 153/1032 (14.8%), p = .33] or blastocyst stage FET [256/1179 (21.7%) versus 148/633 (23.4%), p = .4). Ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable between DET and SET [316/1665 (18.9%) versus 359/1936 (18.5%)]. Multiple delivery rates were significantly higher in women with DET compared to SET [53/316 (16.7%) versus 7/359 (1.9%), p < .001]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis allowing adjustment for relevant confounders showed that the number of embryos transferred in the frozen cycle was not related to LBR.Conclusions: This is the largest study providing evidence that both SET and DET may result in similar LBR, albeit multiple pregnancy rates are significantly lower in case of SET. Therefore, SET should be the main strategy in women undergoing FET.

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection

BACKGROUND

Transfer of more than one embryo during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) increases multiple pregnancy rates resulting in an increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer offers a means of minimising this risk, but this potential gain needs to be balanced against the possibility of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 2020. We handsearched reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. We also communicated with experts in the field regarding any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or ICSI in infertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one to four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were LBR and multiple pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. We analysed data using risk ratios (RR), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and a fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs in the review (2505 women). The main limitation was inadequate reporting of study methods and moderate to high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. A majority of the studies had low numbers of participants. None of the trials compared repeated single embryo transfer (SET) with multiple embryo transfer. Reported results of multiple embryo transfer below refer to double embryo transfer. Repeated single embryo transfer versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle Repeated SET was compared with double embryo transfer (DET) in four studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET (three studies). The cumulative live birth rate after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET (RR 0.95, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.82 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 42% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the repeated SET would yield pregnancy rates between 34% and 46%. The multiple pregnancy rate associated with repeated SET is probably reduced compared to a single cycle of DET (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 13% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 3%. The clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 47%; 3 studies, 943 participants; low-quality evidence) after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET. There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. Single versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle A single cycle of SET was compared with a single cycle of DET in 13 studies, 11 comparing cleavage-stage transfers and three comparing blastocyst-stage transfers.One study reported both cleavage and blastocyst stage transfers. Low-quality evidence suggests that the live birth rate per woman may be reduced in women who have SET in comparison with those who have DET (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; I² = 0%; 12 studies, 1904 participants; low-quality evidence). Thus, for a woman with a 46% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 27% and 35%. The multiple pregnancy rate per woman is probably lower in those who have SET than those who have DET (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.22; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 1952 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 2% and 4%. Low-quality evidence suggests that the clinical pregnancy rate may be lower in women who have SET than in those who have DET (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1860 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although DET achieves higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per fresh cycle, the evidence suggests that the difference in effectiveness may be substantially offset when elective SET is followed by a further transfer of a single embryo in fresh or frozen cycle, while simultaneously reducing multiple pregnancies, at least among women with a good prognosis. The quality of evidence was low to moderate primarily due to inadequate reporting of study methods and absence of masking those delivering, as well as receiving the interventions.

Pregnancy and birth outcomes of single versus multiple embryo transfer in gestational surrogacy arrangements: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Multiple embryo transfer (MET) is associated with both an increased risk of multiple pregnancy and of live birth. In recent years, MET has become standard practice for most surrogacy arrangements. There is limited review of the use of MET versus single embryo transfer (SET) in surrogacy practice. The present review systematically evaluated the pregnancy outcomes of surrogacy arrangements between MET versus SET among gestational carriers. A systematic search of five computerized databases without restriction to the English language or study type was conducted to evaluate the primary outcomes: (i) clinical pregnancy; (ii) live delivery; and (iii) multiple delivery rates. The search returned 97 articles, five of which met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that clinical pregnancy (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.39, n  =  5, I² = 41%), live delivery (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.10-1.51, n  =  4, I² = 35%) and multiple delivery rates (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 6.58-69.73, n  =  4, I² = 54%) were statistically significantly different in MET compared to SET. Adverse events including miscarriage, preterm birth and low birthweight were found following MET. Our findings support the existing evidence that MET results in multiple pregnancy and subsequently more adverse outcomes compared to SET. From a public health perspective, SET should be advocated as the preferred treatment for gestational carriers.

[Pregnancy and obstetric outcomes of elective single versus double cleavage-stage embryo transfer]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the pregnancy and obstetric outcomes in elective single versus two cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

METHODS

Fresh cleavage-stage embryo transfer cycles between January, 2014 and October, 2015 were reviewed, including 39 single embryo transfer (eSET) cycles and 200 double embryo transfer (DET) cycles. The clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, multiple pregnancy rates, live birth rate, and obstetric outcomes (gestational age, preterm delivery rate and mean birth weight) were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The estradiol level on the day of trigger and the oocyte number were significantly higher in eSET group than in DET group (10654.4 pmol/L vs 8284.2 pmol/L and 8.4 vs 7.0, respectively). No significant difference was found in the pregnancy rate (56.4% vs 66.0%) or live birth rate (48.7% vs 51.5%) between the two groups, and their implantation rates differed significantly (56.4% vs 37.8%). No multiple pregnancies occurred in eSET group while the rate of multiple pregnancies was 22.7% in DET group. The gestational age and mean birth weight were significantly higher in eSET group (P<0.05), and the preterm delivery rate after DET was nearly three times of that after eSET, although this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective single embryo transfer can be performed without compromising the live birth rates. Multiple pregnancy rates can be significantly reduced with eSET, which also results in a higher chance of delivering a term singleton live birth compared with DET.