|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access |
→ Contents list for this issue
→ For editorial comment, see Jansen and Dill
→ More articles on Obstetrics and gynaecology and women’s health
Correction: The Acknowledgement section was corrected in the html and pdf versions of this article.
→ Other articles have cited this article
→ Search PubMed for related articles
Click to Login
Hide the Login Box
To compare the perinatal outcomes of babies conceived by single embryo transfer (SET) with those conceived by double embryo transfer (DET).
A retrospective population-based study of embryo transfer cycles in Australia and New Zealand between 2002 and 2006, using data from the Australia and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database.
Proportion of SET procedures; comparison of SET and DET procedures with respect to multiple births, low birthweight (LBW), preterm birth and fetal death.
The proportion of SET procedures has increased from 28.4% in 2002 to 32.0% in 2003, 40.5% in 2004, 48.2% in 2005 and 56.9% in 2006. The multiple birth rate for all babies conceived by SET (4.0%) was 10 times lower than for those conceived by DET (39.1%) (P < 0.01). The average birthweight for all liveborn babies conceived by SET (3290 g) was higher than for those conceived by DET (2934 g) (P < 0.01). The preterm birth rate of all DET-conceived babies (30.3%) was higher than for SET-conceived babies (12.3%) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.19 [95% CI, 3.01–3.38]). All babies conceived by DET were more likely to be stillborn than those conceived by SET (AOR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.21–1.82]). Singletons conceived by DET were more likely to be born preterm than singletons conceived by SET (AOR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.05–1.22]). Liveborn singletons conceived by DET were 15% more likely to have LBW than liveborn singletons conceived by SET (AOR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05–1.26]). There was no significant difference in fetal death rate between DET- and SET-conceived singletons.
Login or register to purchase access to the full article
|
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2009 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377