4.6 Article

Analysis of factors associated with multiple pregnancy in an oocyte donation programme

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 694-699

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.023

Keywords

clinical pregnancy rate; embryo quality; multiple pregnancy rate; oocyte donation

Funding

  1. Catedra d'Investigacio en Obstetricia i Ginecologia of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  2. Institut Universitari Dexeus
  3. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study is to identify the factors associated with multiple pregnancy in an oocyte donation programme. A retrospective study (2000-2007) of 945 synchronous cycles was performed. Two embryos were transferred in all cycles on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. All variables (egg donor and recipient age, number of inseminated oocytes, fertilized oocytes, cleaved embryos, good-quality embryos available, good-quality embryos transferred and frozen embryos) were analysed in relation to the clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (PR) and the multiple pregnancy rate (MPR). The donor age was 26.8 +/- 4.5 years and recipient age was 41.0 +/- 5.4. The number of good-quality embryos per recipient was 3.1 +/- 2.5. The PR was 55.1% and the MPR 36.5%. The number of good-quality embryos transferred (2 versus 0) was significantly associated (P < 0.05) with the PR (60.6% versus 43.5%). The relationship between the MPR and the number of good-quality embryos transferred was adjusted by donor and recipient's age. For those patients who received 2 versus 0 good-quality embryos, the odds ratio of a multiple pregnancy was 2.1 (95% CI 1.121-3.876). The only predictive factor for multiple pregnancies in an oocyte donation programme is the quality of the transferred embryos. (C) 2010, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available