Back to research feed

Fertility and sterility

October 19, 2026 · via Europe PMC

Strategy-Based Comparison of Fresh Double Embryo Transfer Versus Sequential Single Embryo Transfers in Women With Adequate Blastocyst Availability.

Weng TH, Lee CC, Lee KS, Chiu CS, Kuo-Kuang Lee R, Lin MH.

Journal ArticleAbstract only — full text under license

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Sequential single embryo transfers gave higher cumulative pregnancy and live birth than fresh double transfer.

What was studied

Retrospective single-centre study of 256 women under 40: 135 sequential SET and 121 fresh DET.

Key findings

  • Cumulative clinical pregnancy was 86.7% vs 61.2%.
  • Cumulative live birth was 63.7% vs 51.2% (RR 1.24).
  • Initial pregnancy rate was lower with SET.

Clinical relevance

Supports elective single embryo transfer with frozen follow-up.

Who should care

Reproductive Medicine & Surgery

Limitations

Retrospective; the SET group was younger, so confounding likely.

Prefer sequential SET when multiple good blastocysts exist.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

Objective

To compare the cumulative reproductive outcomes of two embryo transfer strategies in women with adequate blastocyst availability: immediate fresh double embryo transfer (DET) and a sequential strategy consisting of fresh single embryo transfer (SET) followed by frozen-thawed SET derived from the same retrieval cohort.

Design

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Taipei MacKay Memorial Hospital using clinical data from January 2017 to December 2023.

Setting

A single tertiary reproductive center.

Subjects

Women younger than 40 years with normal ovarian reserve and ≥ two good-quality blastocysts obtained from a single stimulation cycle.

Exposure

Patients underwent either fresh DET or sequential SET that included a second transfer within three years.

Main outcome measures

Cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (CCPR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per retrieval cycle.

Results

A total of 256 patients were included: 135 in the sequential SET group (33.39 ± 3.13 years) and 121 in the fresh DET group (35.41 ± 2.87 years). The CCPR was significantly higher in the sequential SET group than in the fresh DET group (86.7% vs.61.2%; RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.21-1.66), as was the CLBR (63.7% vs.51.2%; RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.00-1.54). Although the initial pregnancy rate was lower in the group who would have sequential SET than fresh DET (41.4% vs.61.2%), cumulative pregnancy outcomes improved substantially after the second transfer in the SET cohort. The miscarriage rate did not differ significantly between the sequential SET and fresh DET groups (24.7% vs. 14.9%; RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.89-3.13), whereas the twin pregnancy rate was markedly lower (0% vs.14.9%, p < 0.001) in the sequential SET group. Based on pooled neonatal data irrespective of plurality, mean gestational age (38.47 vs.37.41 weeks, p = 0.69) and mean birth weight (3065 vs.2773 g, p = 0.09) were comparable between groups. Preterm births per oocyte retrieval cycle were significantly less frequent following sequential SET than fresh DET (2 vs.16, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Among patients with favorable embryo availability, sequential SET demonstrated higher cumulative reproductive outcomes within a strategy-based framework than fresh DET. These findings reflect differences in embryo utilization pathways rather than in isolated transfer efficacy; they should be interpreted in the context of treatment continuation and cohort selection.

DOI

10.1016/j.fertnstert.2026.10.013

PMID

42896753

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in