Cargando…
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 system...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8793185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35086551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00899-1 |
_version_ | 1784640541558833152 |
---|---|
author | Ma, Shujuan Peng, Yangqin Hu, Liang Wang, Xiaojuan Xiong, Yiquan Tang, Yi Tan, Jing Gong, Fei |
author_facet | Ma, Shujuan Peng, Yangqin Hu, Liang Wang, Xiaojuan Xiong, Yiquan Tang, Yi Tan, Jing Gong, Fei |
author_sort | Ma, Shujuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12958-022-00899-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8793185 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87931852022-02-03 Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ma, Shujuan Peng, Yangqin Hu, Liang Wang, Xiaojuan Xiong, Yiquan Tang, Yi Tan, Jing Gong, Fei Reprod Biol Endocrinol Review 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12958-022-00899-1. BioMed Central 2022-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8793185/ /pubmed/35086551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00899-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Ma, Shujuan Peng, Yangqin Hu, Liang Wang, Xiaojuan Xiong, Yiquan Tang, Yi Tan, Jing Gong, Fei Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8793185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35086551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00899-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mashujuan comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT pengyangqin comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT huliang comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wangxiaojuan comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xiongyiquan comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tangyi comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tanjing comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gongfei comparisonsofbenefitsandrisksofsingleembryotransferversusdoubleembryotransferasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |