multiple births through IVF need to be cut

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

here

wouldn't this mean the success rate would drop if fewer embrios were implanted? or am I just being dim?

I can understand the logic behind this, as a friend lost a twin who was conceived through IVF - he was stillborn, but I wonder if this will be well received by women going through IVF?

I heard a discussion about this on the radio this morning. From what I could gather, those women with poor quality eggs/embryos would still have more than one implanted to hopefully result in at least one live birth. Those women with good quality embryos and who are not thought to have gestation problems (not sure if that's the right term) will have just one implanted.

I wonder why there are higher risks associated with twins conceived through IVF and those conceived naturally? Is it maybe the quality of the embryos implanted to produce an IVF twin PG?

A properly managed spontaneous twin Pg and delivery is obviously a higher risk than a properly managed singleton but the outcomes for everyone else I've known with spontaneous twin Pgs has been positive.

Yes wannabe, it does mean the success rate will go down. The more embryos you implant, the greater the chance that at least one will survive. The other side of the coin of course is that twin pregnancies have greater risks, both for mother (pre-eclampsia) and for babies (stillbirth, premature birth, cerebral palsy rates are all significantly higher).

It's a difficult balancing act. Bubble, I heard the same stuff as you on the radio, but don't you think "women who are not thought to have gestation problems" wouldn't need IVF in the first place???!

I guess women with no gestational problems might be those who are having treatment due to partner having low sperm count perhaps, or due to them not ovulating naturally but there not being any problems with the uterus etc.

My pregnancy with ds was text book. no problems at all, but my dh has low sperm count, so if we were to have IVF to try to conceive a second child I guess I would fall into the "no gestational problems" category.

Exactly, wannaBe.

Tutti, for many couples the problem isn't carrying a baby, it's the conception. Hence the IVF.

I don't think the risk of carrying twins is necessarily higher if conceived through IVF, I think carrying multiples is always riskier - its just that there are so many more around than would occur naturally since 40% of IVF babies are twins and its nowhere near that rate naturally! Many naturally occurring multiples don't survive.

We're doing IVF for ttc no 2 as DH's sperm zapped by chemo etc. We have already opted to have only one embryo replaced - I looked at all the stats and at my age in each go at IVF I have 29% chance of pregnancy if 1 embryo replaced and 33% chance if 2 replaced. However if 2 are replaced and I conceive there is 40% chance of having twins. Given that 50% of twins spend time in the SCBU I decided it is not worth the risk.

Good luck lizbet

i have a ds1 and dtwins all through ivf and although i am so happy with my 3 i am a little peeved that i said i only wanted 1 put back the second time and the clinic looked at me like i was mad and advised me` against it. i can still remember lying there looking at the embryos on the screen, my legs in the air, trying to get the nerve up to say only put 1 back, i knew it would be twins!! my twins are fantastic, had no health problems an d make our family special, but i wholly support this policy.

It is very unlikely that we would have DS if we had only been allowed to implant one embryo per cycle, and so frankly, I am against anything which takes the flexibility away from clinics to recommend the option which is most likely to result in a pregnancy.

I do agree the risks of multiple should be made clearer to patients though.

Whilst trying to conceive DS I was a member of a forum and made lots of friends, many of whom hve had success - but hardly any who have had twins. The 40% really surprises me tbh.

I do know of one person who conceived twins and one died in utero - a very difficult situation obviously, but the couple were on there 8th attemot at IVF and unexplaine, so they woul have fallen into the being allowed to impant more than one category anyway.

It is very, evry difficult to draw the boundary lines for any fertility tx, when you look at the individual cases - and is it right to make rules that will - imho - just make the statistics look better?