Only transfer one embryo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twin mom here - who tells anyone who asks that I would far rather have had one at a time.

I had a reasonably good pregnancy (in my mid 40's so all the AMA risk factors) a planned, calm delivery at 37 weeks, two healthy 6lb+ babies, an easy c-section recovery, etc...

But two babies at once is hard, hard work. Two toddlers is hard, hard work. Two preschoolers is hard, hard work. Etc...

And it is also very hard on a marriage. And I never feel like I'm giving each child as much individual time as I'd like to, or that I have time to do all the fun little things (baby books, handprints, video/photography, crafts, mommy and me stuff, swimming lessons, .....) as I'd like or hoped to do.

It can be done, certainly. And I'm testament to being able to do it late in life and still be healthy, and have healthy babies. But it is tough. I would have loved to have had the exact same kids a couple of years apart.

I agree that the newborn to about age 3 is very challenging with twins, but I feel that after that point it is easier. Having 2 children who are the same age developmentally and therefore have similar needs, just streamlines everything. For example, since my 6 year old daughters have similar nutritional requirements, I make them the same meals. They have similar developmental issues so I don't need to juggle the needs of two children who have a completely different set of needs (like a preschooler and an infant for example)which I would find more challenging. I can take my daughters to doctors and dentist appointments at the same time, they learned to swim together in the same class, and although they are in different classes at school but are learning the same things and have the same homework assignments and projects. Most of all, the keep each other entertained for so long that sometimes I even feel neglected!

You don't have my kids!

I do look forward to some of what you're describing, and can start to see some glimmers of it, but we aren't out of the weeds yet.

[Anonymous]

I'm so frustrated that the clinic keeps pushing for transferring one (which doesn't work and keeps costing 5K a pop), but on the other hand I can't imagine twins. Thus the frustration continues.

[Anonymous]

You have to go with your gut. SG was overly assertive (almost aggressive) with suggesting that I transfer one embryo (I was 35 at the time). My doc told me of a story of someone miscarrying twins at 20 weeks. While this was a sad story, it mad me mad because I know others who miscarried singletons at 20 weeks or later (including my cousin). I stood my ground and had two transferred. I listened carefully to my embryo report and both of my eggs were not top quality. One was the best quality and they said that the other was "slightly behind that." They retrieved 9, 6 fertilized, 2 made it to blast, one was a slow developing blast. I knew in my gut to go with two and that is what I did. The slow blast did not make it to freeze. I had high hcg numbers but ultimately only a singleton on my ultrasound. He is now 3 years old. Everyone that puts in two will not end up with two. It does increases your odds (risk) of having twins but its not 100%. Pay attention to your egg reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mother of twins I would STRONGLY advise you to transfer one at a time.

You are so young - just have one baby at a time.

Good luck!

Why?

Not PP, but a twin mom here. The risks are higher for both mother and babies. For example, miscarriages are more likely and the risk stays high for a longer portion of the pregnancy, complications for the mother are likelier, and complications for the babies (if they make it) are more frequent. I had a twin pregnancy following IVF that involved several weeks of heavy SCH bleeding, followed by pre-E that compromised my kidney function and collapsed a lung, and ended with giving birth 5 weeks early, a two-week NICU stay, and one baby who likely will be "behind" for life.

Just to spell out things more clearly. Higher risk is still pretty low, e.g. with singletons, it's 0.1% of X condition, with twins it's 0.4%. Not 40 % of all twins. For people who undergo infertility treatments and IVF the risk is inherently higher. You can have a miscarriage or SCH even with a singleton, twins dont directly cause collapsed lungs and kidney shutdowns. Chances are your health was compromised to start with.

There are now studies which show that the combined risk from 2 singleton pregnancies (same person having 1st then 2nd child) is about the same as from 1 twin pregnancy.

Then why are clinics pushing SETs so heavily if there is no difference? At least concede that twins generally are born earlier, which carries attendant issues, right?

Money. They won't take you into shared risk after 39, but will push you into multiple eSets at 40+. Not many people are taking the bait though, if you look at the SART reported numbers it lists average number transferred. eSets are not popular for the AMA group.

[Anonymous]

Then why are clinics pushing SETs so heavily if there is no difference? At least concede that twins generally are born earlier, which carries attendant issues, right?

Money. They won't take you into shared risk after 39, but will push you into multiple eSets at 40+. Not many people are taking the bait though, if you look at the SART reported numbers it lists average number transferred. eSets are not popular for the AMA group.

Am in shared risk and they still only want me to do SET's. By your logic they are losing money on me. I don't think it's about the money, I think they feel the risk to the mom and babies in multiple birth ivf is too high.

[Anonymous]

One is so much better. I'm naturally pregnant with twins and you don't want to go through it if you don't have to.

[Anonymous]

We hat a singleton after my first ESET and another on our seventh transfer. Even with all the money we spent, I'm glad we went that way.

Yes, we spent an extra 10K or so, but a twin pregnancy would have cost at least that much more not to mention Nicu costs, and that's before the kid is even out of the hospital. Preschool, college, all the other expenses mean that one less baby is much cheaper in the long run. If Shady Grove pressures for ESETS to make more money, so be it. It is better for the financial and physical health of families in the long run too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We hat a singleton after my first ESET and another on our seventh transfer. Even with all the money we spent, I'm glad we went that way.

Yes, we spent an extra 10K or so, but a twin pregnancy would have cost at least that much more not to mention Nicu costs, and that's before the kid is even out of the hospital. Preschool, college, all the other expenses mean that one less baby is much cheaper in the long run. If Shady Grove pressures for ESETS to make more money, so be it. It is better for the financial and physical health of families in the long run too.

Wtf? Plenty of twins do not need any nicu time. Please don't automatically make such fallacious assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We hat a singleton after my first ESET and another on our seventh transfer. Even with all the money we spent, I'm glad we went that way.

Yes, we spent an extra 10K or so, but a twin pregnancy would have cost at least that much more not to mention Nicu costs, and that's before the kid is even out of the hospital. Preschool, college, all the other expenses mean that one less baby is much cheaper in the long run. If Shady Grove pressures for ESETS to make more money, so be it. It is better for the financial and physical health of families in the long run too.

Wtf? Plenty of twins do not need any nicu time. Please don't automatically make such fallacious assumptions.

About half of twins are premature. That is a much much higher rate than singletons. That typically means nicu time plus therapy later on. That therapy may not be covered by insurance and can cost hundreds of dollars a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We hat a singleton after my first ESET and another on our seventh transfer. Even with all the money we spent, I'm glad we went that way.

Yes, we spent an extra 10K or so, but a twin pregnancy would have cost at least that much more not to mention Nicu costs, and that's before the kid is even out of the hospital. Preschool, college, all the other expenses mean that one less baby is much cheaper in the long run. If Shady Grove pressures for ESETS to make more money, so be it. It is better for the financial and physical health of families in the long run too.

Wtf? Plenty of twins do not need any nicu time. Please don't automatically make such fallacious assumptions.

Half of all twins spend time in the NICU. I'd say that's a significant risk.