Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/29514
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorSistema FMUSP-HC: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) e Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP-
dc.contributor.authorMONTELEONE, Pedro A. A.-
dc.contributor.authorPEREGRINO, Pedro F. M.-
dc.contributor.authorBARACAT, Edmund C.-
dc.contributor.authorSERAFINI, Paulo C.-
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-21T17:05:14Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-21T17:05:14Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationREPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES, v.25, n.10, p.1501-1508, 2018-
dc.identifier.issn1933-7191-
dc.identifier.urihttps://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/29514-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are associated with potential risks, mainly related to multiple pregnancies, which are around 20% to 25%. Iatrogenic multiple pregnancies due to ovarian stimulation with multiples embryos transferred can be avoided by the elective single-embryo transfer (eSET), a growing practice worldwide. Adequately applied eSET, which impact on the incidence of complications without compromising treatment success, is still a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the cumulative success rates of elective transfer of 2 embryos when transferred one by one (eSET), versus the success rates of elective double-embryo transfer (DET) in a single procedure, in a good prognosis population. Methods: This study evaluated 610 good prognosis infertile couples undergoing ART, split into 2 groups: eSET group which included those receiving first eSET (n = 237) and for those who did not become pregnant, they could receive a second frozen-thawed SET; and eDET group (n = 373) who received elective transfer of 2 good quality embryos in the first transfer. Results: Clinical pregnancy outcomes after a transfer of 2 embryos were similar between the groups (DET: 46.6% vs accumulated SET: 45.9%; P = .898). Multiple pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the group receiving transfer of 2 embryos, one by one, compared to DET (DET: 32.2% vs accumulated SET: 6.7%; P < .001). Conclusions: The eSET policy should be stimulated for good prognosis couples, as it maintains the accumulated clinical pregnancy rates, avoids multiples pregnancies, and consequently the maternal and neonate complication and indirect costs of treatment when considering spending on the obstetrics are reduced.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONS INC-
dc.relation.ispartofReproductive Sciences-
dc.rightsrestrictedAccess-
dc.subjectin vitro fertilization-
dc.subjectsingle-embryo transfer-
dc.subjectdouble-embryo transfer-
dc.subjectpregnancy rate-
dc.subjectmultiple pregnancy-
dc.subject.otherin-vitro fertilization-
dc.subject.otherassisted reproductive technology-
dc.subject.other1st 5 years-
dc.subject.otherlive birth-
dc.subject.otherhospital costs-
dc.subject.otherunited-states-
dc.subject.othersweden-
dc.subject.othertrends-
dc.subject.otherivf-
dc.subject.otheracceptability-
dc.titleTransfer of 2 Embryos Using a Double-Embryo Transfer Protocol Versus 2 Sequential Single-Embryo Transfers: The Impact on Multiple Pregnancy-
dc.typearticle-
dc.rights.holderCopyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1933719118756750-
dc.identifier.pmid29558870
dc.subject.wosObstetrics & Gynecology-
dc.subject.wosReproductive Biology-
dc.type.categoryoriginal article-
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion-
hcfmusp.description.beginpage1501-
hcfmusp.description.endpage1508-
hcfmusp.description.issue10-
hcfmusp.description.volume25-
hcfmusp.origemWOS-
hcfmusp.origem.idWOS:000444981800006-
hcfmusp.origem.id2-s2.0-85044355906-
hcfmusp.publisher.cityTHOUSAND OAKS-
hcfmusp.publisher.countryUSA-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAdashi EY, 2017, RAMBAM MAIMONIDES ME, V8, DOI 10.5041/RMMJ.10299-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMonteleone PAA, 2016, REPROD BIOMED ONLINE, V33, P161, DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.04.011-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceChambers GM, 2014, JAMA PEDIATR, V168, P1045, DOI 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1357-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceCrawford S, 2016, FERTIL STERIL, V105, P444, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.032-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGardner DK, 2000, FERTIL STERIL, V73, P1155, DOI 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00518-5-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGleicher N, 2017, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V124, P755, DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.14479-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHope N, 2010, FERTIL STERIL, V94, P489, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.080-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKallen B, 2005, FERTIL STERIL, V84, P611, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.038-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKallen B, 2005, BRIT MED J, V331, P382, DOI 10.1136/bmj.38443.595046.E0-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKallen B, 2010, HUM REPROD, V25, P1026, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deq003-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKissin DM, 2014, OBSTET GYNECOL, V123, P239, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000106-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKlemetti R, 2002, HUM REPROD, V17, P2192, DOI 10.1093/humrep/17.8.2192-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLuke B, 2015, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V212, P676-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMaheshwari A, 2011, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V17, P107, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmq028-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMcLernon DJ, 2010, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V341, DOI 10.1136/bmj.c6945-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMiller LM, 2017, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V124, P756, DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.14480-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMin JK, 2004, HUM REPROD, V19, P3, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deh028-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMurray S, 2004, HUM REPROD, V19, P911, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deh176-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMurray SR, 2014, SEMIN FETAL NEONAT M, V19, P222, DOI 10.1016/j.siny.2014.03.001-
hcfmusp.relation.referencePALERMO G, 1992, LANCET, V340, P17, DOI 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92425-F-
hcfmusp.relation.referencePfeifer S, 2012, FERTIL STERIL, V97, P835, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRai V, 2011, J ASSIST REPROD GEN, V28, P65, DOI 10.1007/s10815-010-9484-6-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSteinberg ML, 2013, FERTIL STERIL, V99, P1937, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.134-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSunderam S, 2017, MMWR SURVEILL SUMM, V66, P1, DOI 10.15585/mmwr.ss6606a1-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceTobias Tamara, 2016, Fertil Res Pract, V2, P1, DOI 10.1186/s40738-016-0024-7-
hcfmusp.relation.referencevan Heesch MMJ, 2015, HUM REPROD, V30, P1481, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dev059-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceVeeck LL, 1999, ENCY VISUAL MED SERI, P215-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceZegers-Hochschild F, 2016, J BRAS REPROD ASSIST, V20, P49, DOI 10.5935/1518-0557.20160013-
hcfmusp.relation.referenceZollner U, 2013, J PERINAT MED, V41, P17, DOI 10.1515/jpm-2012-0097-
dc.description.indexMEDLINE-
dc.identifier.eissn1933-7205-
hcfmusp.citation.scopus7-
hcfmusp.scopus.lastupdate2022-05-06-
Appears in Collections:

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOG
Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia - FM/MOG

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Instituto Central - HC/ICHC

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/58
LIM/58 - Laboratório de Ginecologia Estrutural e Molecular


Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
art_MONTELEONE_Transfer_of_2_Embryos_Using_a_DoubleEmbryo_Transfer_2018.PDF
  Restricted Access
publishedVersion (English)309.28 kBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.