This link states that live births are comparable in eSets (elective single embryo transfers) and dsets (double embryo transfers). However, they state that ESET in women "35 years who are in their first IVF cycle and have at least three top-quality embryos is as effective as double embryo transfer (DET) and significantly decreases multiple birth rates, suggest study results".
Another site states that: "In the poor responders, the live birth rate per oocyte pick-up and per embryo transfer was 10.9 and 16.3%, respectively, compared with 23.9 and 27.7%, respectively, in the normal responders (p=0.0001 and p=0.01, respectively). In the poor responders, the live birth rate per single embryo transfer was 10.8%, compared with 27.8% per double embryo transfer (DET; p=0.0014) and in normal responders 28.1 vs. 26.6%, respectively (p=0.34)."
A further meta-analysis that combine the research out of Sweden and the Cochrane study states "Although lower pregnancy rates were noted with eSET during fresh IVF cycle when compared to DET, the study findings concluded that an additional frozen embryo transfer cycle will help negate this difference." So what the researchers are assuming is that IVF participants are willing to undergo a further frozen embryo transfer when the first cycle is a failure! They are saying that it is worth it to let patients down in the name of "reduce multiples" in the hopes that their frozen embryo transfer will WORK.
What a crock of crap. I personally don't enjoy being a pawn in fertility clinics' schemes to look good on paper. The same meta-analysis goes on to state that the results show "Lower overall live birth rate (27% vs. 42%; AOR=0.50; 95% CI=0.39-0.63) and greatly reduced multiple birth rate (2% vs. 29%; AOR=0.04; 95% CI=0.01-0.12) following fresh IVF cycle".
No comments:
Post a Comment