Obstetric Outcomes and Successful Reduction of Twin Pregnancies Achieved by In Vitro Fertilization

Gergana Ingilizova; Emil Kovachev; Galina Yaneva

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.8924

Authors

Gergana Ingilizova Multiprofile Hospital For Active Treatment “Vita”, Sofia, Bulgaria
Emil Kovachev Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University, Varna, Bulgaria
Galina Yaneva Department of Biology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University, Varna, Bulgaria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.8924

Keywords:

IVF, Twins, Single embryo transfer

Abstract

The use of in vitro fertilization methods around the world is constantly increasing. In some developed countries, up to 5% of newborns are as a result of pregnancies after IVF procedures. In vitro fertilization as one of the main and widespread methods for treatment of infertility is the main reason for the high frequency of multiple pregnancies, which, in many countries, is still too high. Most of the multiple pregnancies are in fact twin pregnancies. Twin pregnancies, regardless of how they are achieved, are associated with large number of complications compared with singleton ones. More often these pregnancies can lead to maternal complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Maternal complications include development of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, placental abruption, premature rupture of membranes, antepartum and postpartum hemorrhage, and delivery by cesarean sections. Adverse pregnancy outcomes mostly include preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age newborn (SGA), intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). A number of studies have found differences in the course of twin pregnancies according to their mode of occurrence – spontaneous or after IVF. Some of them have found that twin pregnancies after IVF are associated with poorer obstetric and perinatal outcomes, others do not find such a difference, and there are even studies that find a better outcome in IVF twin pregnancies. Twin pregnancy is a common occurrence after IVF procedure, because multiple-embryo transfer is commonly regarded as an effective strategy to improve the likelihood of a successful pregnancy. Understanding the risks of these pregnancies should be a strong motive for the transfer of fewer embryos during IVF procedures. The most effective way to do this is to transfer a single-embryo into the uterus in cases, where this is justified and the chances of getting pregnant are high. An important element in achieving this goal is the use of methods for vitrification of embryos, which leads to a sufficiently high rate of clinical pregnancies after freezing of embryos obtained by IVF and their subsequent transfer after thawing in case of failure of fresh ET.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J, Gardner DK, Palermo GD, O’Neill CL, et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(2):185-324.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.005 PMid:30053940 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.005

Eapen A, Ryan GL, Ten Eyck P, Van Voorhis BJ. Current evidence supporting a goal of singletons: A review of maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with twin versus singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(4):690-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.08.1423 PMid:33040979 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.08.1423

Maslarski I, Belenska L. Qualitative analysis of prints of palms and fingers of twins. J Glob Biosci. 2015;4(7):2833-41.

Maslarski I. Description of qualitative dermatoglyphic traits in twins. C R Acad Bulg Sci. 2015;68(10):1241-6.

McLernon DJ, Steyerberg EW, Te Velde ER, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilization: Populationbased study of linked cycle data from 113 873 women. BMJ. 2016;355:i5735. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5735 PMid:27852632 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5735

Klitzman R. Deciding how many embryos to transfer: Ongoing challenges and dilemmas. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016;3:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.07.001 PMid:29541689 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.07.001

Child TJ, Henderson AM, Tan SL. The desire for multiple pregnancy in male and female infertility patients. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(3):558-61. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh097 PMid:14998951 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh097

Chowdhury S, Hussain MA. Maternal complications in twin pregnancies. Mymensingh Med J. 2011;20(1):83-7. PMid:21240168

Slavov S, Nikolov A. Obstetric complications in singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization. Akusherstvo i Ginekol. 2020;59(1):3-7.

Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(5):485-503. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms018 PMid:22611174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms018

Henningsen AA, Gissler M, Skjaerven R, Bergh C, Tiitinen A, Romundstad LB, et al. Trends in perinatal health after assisted reproduction: A Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):710-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu345 PMid:25605701 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu345

Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, et al. Centers for disease control and prevention (CDC). Assisted reproductive technology surveillance-United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2015;64(6):1-29. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6411a1 PMid:26633040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6411a1

Ninova M. Knowledge and application of medical devices for the prevention of HAI by health care professionals. Knowledge Int J. 2020;42(4):743-9.

Slavov S. An up-to date look at the mode of delivery in diamniotic twin pregnancies. Know Int J. 2021;48(3):391-4.

Slavov S. Safe reduction of cesarean section rate in the second stage of labor-possible solutions. Know Int J. 2021;47(4):575-8.

Hiersch L, Okby R, Freeman H, Rosen H, Nevo O, Barrett J, et al. Differences in fetal growth patterns between twins and singletons. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(15):2546-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1555705 PMid:30501543 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1555705

Moini A, Shiva M, Arabipoor A, Hosseini R, Chehrazi M, Sadeghi M. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology compared with twin pregnancies conceived spontaneously: A prospective follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(1):29-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.008 PMid:22884795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.008

Bordi G, D’Ambrosio A, Gallotta I, Di Benedetto L, Frega A, Torcia F, et al. The influence of ovulation induction and assisted conception on maternal and perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(18):3998-4006. PMid:29028104

Hansen M, Colvin L, Petterson B, Kurinczuk JJ, de Klerk N, Bower C. Twins born following assisted reproductive technology: Perinatal outcome and admission to hospital. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(9):2321-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep173 PMid:19458317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep173

Daskalakis G, Anastasakis E, Papantoniou N, Mesogitis S, Antsaklis A. Second trimester amniocentesis in assisted conception versus spontaneously conceived twins. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2572-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.080 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.080

Vasario E, Borgarello V, Bossotti C, Libanori E, Biolcati M, Arduino S, et al. IVF twins have similar obstetric and neonatal outcome as spontaneously conceived twins: A prospective follow-up study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):422-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.04.007 PMid:20638334 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.04.007

Lin D, Li P, Fan D, Chen G, Wu S, Ye S, et al. Association between IVF/ICSI treatment and preterm birth and major perinatal outcomes among dichorionic-diamnionic twin pregnancies: A seven-year retrospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(1):162-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13981 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13981

Joy J, McClure N, Cooke IE. A comparison of spontaneously conceived twins and twins conceived by artificial reproductive technologies. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28(6):580-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610802311802 PMid:19003649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610802311802

Suzuki S, Miyake H. Perinatal outcomes of elderly primiparous dichorionic twin pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization compared with those conceived spontaneously. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281(1):87-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1083-3 PMid:19381666 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1083-3

Weghofer A, Klein K, Stammler-Safar M, Barad DH, Worda C, Husslein P, et al. Severity of prematurity risk in spontaneous and in vitro fertilization twins: does conception mode serve as a risk factor? Fertil Steril. 2009;92(6):2116-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.087 PMid:19589514 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.087

Vakrilova L, Slavov S, Hitrova S, Slancheva B, Emilova Z. Problems and neonatal outcome of very low birth weight newborn infants after in vitro fertilization. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2013;52(1):30-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.09.228 PMid:23805458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.09.228

Wen SW, Leader A, White RR, Léveillé MC, Wilkie V, Zhou J, et al. A comprehensive assessment of outcomes in pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(2):160-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.028 PMid:20207067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.028

Boulet SL, Schieve LA, Nannini A, Ferre C, Devine O, Cohen B, et al. Perinatal outcomes of twin births conceived using assisted reproduction technology: A population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(8):1941-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den169 PMid:18487216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den169

Vakrilova L, Nikolova SH, Slavov S, Radulova P, Slancheva B. An outbreak of RSV infections in a neonatology clinic during the RSV-season. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-03053-9 PMid:34895173 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-03053-9

Radulova P. Neonatal infections. Diagnostic markers of infection. Akusherstvo i Ginekol. 2010;49(5):42-51. PMid:21268402

Radulova P, Slancheva B. Neonatal hypoxic-ischemic brain injury: Pathogenesis and neuropathology. Akusherstvo I Ginekol. 2014;53(3):41-7. PMid:25509645

Slavov S, Zlatkov G, Nikolov A. Neonatal outcome in singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization. Akusherstvo i Ginekol. 2021;60(1):7-11. https://doi.org/10.7546/crabs.2021.06.14

Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: A metaanalysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(1):73-85.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007 PMid:26453266 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007

Bamberg C, Fotopoulou C, Neissner P, Slowinski T, Dudenhausen JW, Proquitte H, et al. Maternal characteristics and twin gestation outcomes over 10 years: Impact of conception methods. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):95-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.04.009 PMid:2608318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.04.009

Allen C, Bowdin S, Harrison RF, Sutcliffe AG, Brueton L, Kirby G, et al. Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after assisted reproduction: A comparative study. Ir J Med Sci. 2008;177(3):233-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-008-0172-9 PMid:18521653 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-008-0172-9

Barda G, Gluck O, Mizrachi Y, Bar J. A comparison of maternal and perinatal outcome between in vitro fertilization and spontaneous dichorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(24):2974-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1270934 PMid:27936998 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1270934

McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Ohlsson A, Beyene J, Murphy KE, Knowledge Synthesis Group. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization twins: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;148(2):105-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.09.019 PMid:19833428 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.09.019

Slavov S, Karamisheva V, Nikolov A. Influence of vanishing twin syndrome on outcome of singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization. C R Acad Bulg Sci. 2021;74(6):914-9. https://doi.org/10.7546/crabs.2021.06.14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7546/CRABS.2021.06.14

Slavov SS. Malpresentation of the fetus in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2021;9(B):573-6. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.6450 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.6450

Slavov S. Placenta accreta spectrum disorders in pregnancies following in vitro fertilization. MOJ Womens Health. 2021;10(4):70-2. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojwh.2021.10.00291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/mojwh.2021.10.00291

Slavov S, Yaneva G. Preterm birth and low birth weight in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization-influence of infertility and method of fertilization. J IMAB. 2021;27(4):4010-3. https://doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2021274.4010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2021274.4010

Slavov S, Ingilizova G, Yaneva G. Analysis of delivery in singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2021;9(B):885-9. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.6705 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.6705

Sazonova A, Källen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(3):731-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.023 PMid:23219009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.023

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Practice Committee. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee opinion No. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):633-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000444440.96486.61 PMid:24559617 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000444440.96486.61

Nasiri N, Eftekhari-Yazdi P. An overview of the available methods for morphological scoring of pre-implantation embryos in in vitro fertilization. Cell J. 2015;16(4):392-405. https://doi.org/10.22074/cellj.2015.486 PMid:25685730

Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Marjoribanks J, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;5(5):CD011320. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011320.pub4 PMid:31140578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4

Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Abdalla H, Nikolau D, Norman-Taylor J, Johnson M, et al. Metabolomics as a tool to identify biomarkers to predict and improve outcomes in reproductive medicine: A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(6):723-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx023 PMid:29069503 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx023

Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGTA): A committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002 PMid:29566854 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;110(7):1246-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.09.011 PMid:30503113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.09.011

Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. European IVF-monitoring programme (EIM) for the European society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(7):1680-97. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del075 PMid:16585126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del075

Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, et al. European IVF-monitoring (EIM); Consortium for European society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2571-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des255 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des255

Calhaz-Jorge C, de Geyter C, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, Erb K, Mocanu E, et al. European IVF-monitoring consortium (EIM) for the European society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(8):1638-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa038 PMid:27496943

De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. European IVF-monitoring consortium (EIM) for the European Society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). ART in Europe, 2014: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVFmonitoring consortium (EIM) for the European society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1586-601. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa038 PMid:30032255

Wyns C, Bergh C, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, Motrenko T. European IVF-monitoring consortium (EIM) for the European society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE), ART in Europe, 2016: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(3):hoaa032. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa038 PMid:32760812 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa038

Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):835-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050 PMid:22196716 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050

Newman J, Fitzgerald O, Paul R, Chambers G. Assisted Reproductive Technology in Australia and New Zealand 2017. Sydney: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, University of New South Wales Sydney; 2019.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Analyses of the National ART Surveillance System (NASS) Data. Written Communication with the Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. United States: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/e563292012-001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e563292012-001

Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour G, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2:CD003416. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003416.pub3 PMid:32827168 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003416.pub3