Journal of Human Reproductive Science
Home Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives
   Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size    Users online: 1008


 
   Table of Contents     
REVIEW ARTICLE  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 177-181
 

Perinatal outcomes following assisted reproductive technology


1 Division of Women's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
2 Department of Reproductive Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication16-Sep-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohan S Kamath
Department of Reproductive Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore - 632 004, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_83_19

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 


As the use of routine assisted reproductive technology (ART) becomes widespread along with the extended applications such as ART with donor gametes, surrogacy, and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), it becomes more pertinent to evaluate risks associated with them. Perinatal outcomes and long-term safety for the women and children are paramount. In this review, we aimed to detail the perinatal outcomes in relation to the ART procedures routinely applied as the extended applications of ART with a focus on singleton pregnancies. While there seems to be a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes with some of the ART procedures, the absolute risk increase is generally low. It is important for clinicians to have this knowledge to better counsel and care for their patients.


Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology, low birth weight, perinatal outcomes, preterm birth


How to cite this article:
Sunkara SK, Chinta P, Kamath MS. Perinatal outcomes following assisted reproductive technology. J Hum Reprod Sci 2019;12:177-81

How to cite this URL:
Sunkara SK, Chinta P, Kamath MS. Perinatal outcomes following assisted reproductive technology. J Hum Reprod Sci [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 17];12:177-81. Available from: http://www.jhrsonline.org/text.asp?2019/12/3/177/266900





   Introduction Top


The aim of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is to maximize success, along with safety both short and long term to the woman and the offspring. With ART being on the uprise, and more children being born as a result, there is more interest in the health outcomes of ART-conceived pregnancies and children. The single most important and yet avoidable adverse outcome following ART have been multiple pregnancies and multiple births resulting from the replacement of more than one embryo into the uterus. Multiple pregnancies are associated with significantly higher risks of adverse perinatal outcomes. Maternal complications include increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, peripartum hemorrhage, and cesarean section.[1] Multiple pregnancies are also associated with a six-fold increase in the risk of preterm birth (PTB), which is a leading cause of infant mortality and long-term mental and physical disabilities, including cerebral palsy and chronic lung disease.[2]

There have, therefore, been concerted efforts by professional organizations and public policies to reduce multiple births following ART. Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) has been promoted as a first-line approach to reduce multiple pregnancies and has been on the rise in recent years.[3] This rise in eSET can be attributed to advances in ART technologies, particularly laboratory advances in better embryo selection as well as cryopreservation methods. However, ART singletons also have a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions. Singleton pregnancies following in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are associated with higher incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, PTB, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), and perinatal mortality.[4] These risks are attributed to the underlying infertility in the women undergoing ART, to the ART procedures and techniques which may cause epigenetic modifications of the oocytes or embryos.[5]

In this review, we will focus on the various ART processes to elucidate the evidence for their contribution to perinatal risks in singleton pregnancies. We will address the routine ART practices such as ovarian stimulation use, IVF versus ICSI, cleavage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer, fresh versus frozen embryo transfer, as well as expanding ART applications such as embryo biopsy with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGT), gamete donation, and surrogacy.


   Ovarian Stimulation and Perinatal Outcomes Top


Ovarian stimulation is routinely used in ART to increase the efficacy. A large study comparing clinical outcomes following 6168 unstimulated IVF cycles versus 584,835 stimulated IVF cycles showed that as many as 3.5 IVF unstimulated cycles are needed to achieve the same live birth rate as one stimulated cycle, justifying the routine use of ovarian stimulation.[6] Although ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a serious iatrogenic risk following the use of ovarian stimulation, the progresses in controlled ovarian stimulation strategies, such as the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist over GnRH agonist for pituitary suppression and the alternative GnRH agonist trigger over human chorionic gonadotropin trigger for final oocyte maturation have mitigated the risk. Moreover, the additional back up of freeze all strategy has further envisioned the concept of an OHSS-free clinic.[7]

In addition to the immediate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risk, there has been speculation regarding the long-term effects with the use of ovarian stimulation, which includes perinatal risks. A recent meta-analysis addressing the perinatal risks with the ovarian stimulation use in ART showed that stimulation use in ART was associated with a higher risk of PTB, <37 weeks gestation (risk ratio [RR]: 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03–1.58) and LBW <2500 g (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.03–3.67) compared to natural cycle or modified natural cycle IVF.[8] However, given that the absolute increase in the risk of the adverse perinatal outcomes is low, the use of ovarian stimulation in ART could be justified given the efficiency in improving ART success. Furthermore, a large cohort study addressing the association between ovarian response to stimulation quantified as the number of oocytes retrieved, and the risk of PTB or LBW found that the risk increase was noted only with a very high number of oocytes (>20) and not below this.[9] Compared to women who had a normal response defined as 10–15 oocytes retrieved women who had an excessive response with >20 oocytes had a significantly higher risk of PTB (odds ratio [OR]: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.03–1.28) and LBW (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.06–1.31) in a fresh IVF cycle. Furthermore, a recent study demonstrated that supraphysiologic estradiol level in ovarian stimulation cycles affects the birth weight of neonates conceived through subsequent frozen-thawed cycles, a higher estradiol level being associated with an increased risk of LBW.[10] The findings of the study suggest that the supraphysiological estradiol levels have an effect beyond the endometrium. This evidence reiterates the importance of using safe stimulation protocols, avoiding excessive response, and reassures the safety of ovarian stimulation use.


   Perinatal Outcomes Following Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Top


The use of ICSI continues to be on the rise worldwide, and hence, it is of interest, whether ICSI alone poses any perinatal risks.[11],[12],[13] A large population-based cohort study from Denmark compared the neonatal outcomes of 446 children born following surgical sperm retrieval procedures such as testicular sperm extraction, testicular sperm aspiration, percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration, and ICSI with control groups that included children born following ICSI with ejaculated sperm (8967), IVF (17,592), and spontaneous conceptions (63,854) during the same time period 1995–2009.[14] For singleton births, there was no significant difference in the risks of PTB following ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm versus ICSI with ejaculated sperm (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.66–2.85), ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm versus conventional IVF (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 0.70–5.38), and ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm versus natural conceptions (OR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.60–1.74). There was no significant difference in the risks of LBW following ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm versus ICSI with ejaculated sperm (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.61–1.65), and ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm versus conventional IVF (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.68–2.40). The risk of LBW was higher following ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm versus natural conceptions (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44–0.77). A retrospective cohort study comparing perinatal outcomes in singleton births following ICSI found no significant difference in PTB (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.95–1.46) and LBW (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91–1.44) compared to natural conceptions.[15]


   Perinatal Outcomes Following Blastocyst Stage Transfers Top


The last decade has seen an exponential rise in blastocyst stage transfers in many countries, in efforts to reduce transfer of multiple embryos by enabling better embryo selection.[16] This change in practice from routine cleavage stage to blastocyst stage transfer has highlighted interest in perinatal and long-term outcomes with blastocyst transfer. A systematic review and meta-analysis showed singleton pregnancies following blastocyst stage transfers to be associated with a higher risk of PTB (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.32, 95% CI: 1.19–1.46).[17] The study also found a higher risk of congenital anomalies following blastocyst stage transfer versus cleavage stage transfer (aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.03–1.62). Some of the studies included in the systematic review had both fresh and frozen transfers. As it has been reported that frozen embryo transfer may have a protective effect against preterm delivery and these findings would merit validation from further studies as a recent population-based retrospective, Swedish registry-based study involving 4819 singletons after blastocyst transfer, 25,747 after cleavage stage transfer between the period 2002–2013 demonstrated no significant difference in the risk of PTB (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.99–1.27), a lower risk of LBW (aOR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71–0.97), higher perinatal mortality with blastocyst transfer, and no increased risk of birth defects (aOR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79–1.13).[18],[19] A recent large study has shown a significantly higher rate of monozygotic twinning following blastocyst compared to cleavage-stage transfers.[20]


   Perinatal Outcomes Following Fresh Versus Frozen Transfers Top


The debate on fresh versus frozen embryo transfer as the first line has been a topic of much debate recently. Alongside clinical outcomes such as live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation (OHSS rates), there has been an interest in the perinatal outcomes. Evidence from a systematic review suggests that transfers of frozen embryos are associated with a lower risk of PTB (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78–0.90), SGA (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.30–0.66), and LBW (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62–0.76), while another cohort study reported a higher risk of high birth weight (HBW) (adjusted RR: 1.64, 99.5% CI: 1.53–1.76) following frozen transfers compared to fresh transfers.[18],[21] The systematic review included mainly observational studies. There is also evidence emerging from randomized controlled trials of frozen transfers resulting in HBW singletons.[22]


   Perinatal Outcomes Following Oocyte Donation Assisted Reproductive Technology Top


Oocyte donation (OD) is an alternative treatment option instead of autologous IVF in women of advanced age and is associated with a higher success rate.[23] Over the years, there has been an increase in a number of OD cycles performed across the world.[12],[24] Pregnancies following OD have been associated with a higher risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared to pregnancies following spontaneous conceptions, and these poor outcomes have been attributed to a higher prevalence of hypertensive disorders during OD pregnancies.[25],[26] The reason for the higher risk of hypertensive disorders in OD pregnancies could be linked to an immunological maladaptation to foreign antigens arising from the fetus.[27]

A large cohort study from the UK evaluated the perinatal outcomes following OD and autologous IVF and included 4248 OD and 95,844 autologous singleton births.[28] The risk of PTB (aOR: 1.56, 99.5% CI: 1.34–1.80) and LBW (aOR: 1.43, 99.5% CI: 1.24–1.66) were significantly higher following OD compared to autologous IVF singleton after adjusting for potential confounders such as age and parity. An earlier systematic review compared perinatal outcomes in singletons after OD compared to autologous IVF and included 35 studies. The authors found a higher risk of PTB (aOR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.39–2.20) and LBW (aOR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.16–2.01) following OD compared to autologous IVF.[29]


   Perinatal Outcomes Following Surrogacy Top


There has been an increase in a number of surrogacy cycles in certain regions across the world due to rise in surrogacy tourism and legalizing of the surrogacy in certain countries. While the pregnancies following OD have been associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, there is a paucity of data regarding perinatal outcomes following surrogacy. An earlier study involving the SART database found no significant increase in the risk of PTB (aOR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.87–1.18) and a lower risk of LBW (aOR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57–0.88) with singleton pregnancies following surrogacy.[30] Another cohort study, which analyzed the HFEA database did not find any significant difference in the risk of PTB (aOR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.56–1.42) and LBW (aOR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.57–1.43) between pregnancies following surrogacy compared to autologous fresh IVF cycle.[31]


   Perinatal Outcomes Following Embryo Biopsy for Preimplantation Genetic Testing Top


Preimplantation genetic testing involves a biopsy of the embryos either at the cleavage or blastocyst stage, and whether such manipulation affects perinatal outcomes has been addressed by studies. A cohort study from HFEA database did not find any increased risk of PTB (aOR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45–0.98) or LBW (aOR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38–0.88) following PGT compared to autologous IVF.[32] Another study, which followed up 995 children born following PGT, also did not find any increased risk of adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes.[33]


   Conclusion Top


Overall, ART appears safe in terms of perinatal outcomes. Although some procedures are associated with perinatal risks, the absolute risk increase should be considered, and patients counseled accordingly, to allay overriding concerns. It is currently uncertain whether the perinatal outcomes bear long-term consequences. As the long-term outcomes of ART are still unraveling, such consequences need to be studied further.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Senat MV, Ancel PY, Bouvier-Colle MH, Bréart G. How does multiple pregnancy affect maternal mortality and morbidity? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998;41:78-83.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Chambers GM, Ledger W. The economic implications of multiple pregnancy following ART. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19:254-61.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bhattacharya S, Kamath MS. Reducing multiple births in assisted reproduction technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014;28:191-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Luke B, Gopal D, Cabral H, Stern JE, Diop H. Pregnancy, birth, and infant outcomes by maternal fertility status: The massachusetts outcomes study of assisted reproductive technology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:327.e1-14.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Söderström-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:87-104.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sunkara SK, LaMarca A, Polyzos NP, Seed PT, Khalaf Y. Live birth and perinatal outcomes following stimulated and unstimulated IVF: Analysis of over two decades of a nationwide data. Hum Reprod 2016;31:2261-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2593-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kamath MS, Kirubakaran R, Mascarenhas M, Sunkara SK. Perinatal outcomes after stimulated versus natural cycle IVF: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2018;36:94-101.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Sunkara SK, La Marca A, Seed PT, Khalaf Y. Increased risk of preterm birth and low birthweight with very high number of oocytes following IVF: An analysis of 65 868 singleton live birth outcomes. Hum Reprod 2015;30:1473-80.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Cai J, Liu L, Xu Y, Liu Z, Jiang X, Li P, et al. Estradiol level in ovarian stimulation cycles affects the birth weight of neonatal conceived through subsequent frozen-thawed cycles: A retrospective study. BJOG 2019;126:711-18.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Xiong X, Dickey RP, Buekens P, Shaffer JG, Pridjian G. Use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and birth outcomes in women conceiving through in vitro fertilization. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2017;31:108-15.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM), European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1957-73.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Zagadailov P, Hsu A, Stern JE, Seifer DB. Temporal differences in utilization of intracytoplasmic sperm injection among U.S. regions. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:310-20.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Fedder J, Loft A, Parner ET, Rasmussen S, Pinborg A. Neonatal outcome and congenital malformations in children born after ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm: A controlled national cohort study. Hum Reprod 2013;28:230-40.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ombelet W, Peeraer K, De Sutter P, Gerris J, Bosmans E, Martens G, et al. Perinatal outcome of ICSI pregnancies compared with a matched group of natural conception pregnancies in flanders (Belgium): A cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:244-53.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Maheshwari A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod Biomed Online 2016;32:142-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Dar S, Lazer T, Shah PS, Librach CL. Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:439-48.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012;98:368-770.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Ginström Ernstad E, Bergh C, Khatibi A, Källén KB, Westlander G, Nilsson S, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcome after blastocyst transfer: A population-based registry study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214:378.e1-10.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Ikemoto Y, Kuroda K, Ochiai A, Yamashita S, Ikuma S, Nojiri S, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of zygotic splitting after 937 848 single embryo transfer cycles. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1984-91.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Maheshwari A, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: An analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the human fertilisation and embryology authority anonymized dataset. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1703-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Chen ZJ, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2016;375:523-33.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA. Oocyte donation to women of advanced reproductive age: Pregnancy results and obstetrical outcomes in patients 45 years and older. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2540-3.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Kawwass JF, Monsour M, Crawford S, Kissin DM, Session DR, Kulkarni AD, et al. Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000-2010. JAMA 2013;310:2426-34.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Malchau SS, Loft A, Larsen EC, Aaris Henningsen AK, Rasmussen S, Andersen AN, et al. Perinatal outcomes in 375 children born after oocyte donation: A Danish national cohort study. Fertil Steril 2013;99:1637-43.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Elenis E, Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Skalkidou A, Škerud H, Sydsjö G. Adverse obstetric outcomes in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation: A retrospective cohort case study in sweden. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:247.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Savasi VM, Mandia L, Laoreti A, Cetin I. Maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donation pregnancies. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:620-33.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Kamath MS, Antonisamy B, Mascarenhas M, Sunkara SK. High-risk of preterm birth and low birth weight after oocyte donation IVF: Analysis of 133,785 live births. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;35:318-24.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Storgaard M, Loft A, Bergh C, Wennerholm UB, Söderström-Anttila V, Romundstad LB, et al. Obstetric and neonatal complications in pregnancies conceived after oocyte donation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2017;124:561-72.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM; National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System (NASS) Group. Trends and outcomes of gestational surrogacy in the United States. Fertil Steril 2016;106:435-4200.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Sunkara SK, Antonisamy B, Selliah HY, Kamath MS. Perinatal outcomes after gestational surrogacy versus autologous IVF: Analysis of national data. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;35:708-14.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Sunkara SK, Antonisamy B, Selliah HY, Kamath MS. Pre-term birth and low birth weight following preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Analysis of 88 010 singleton live births following PGD and IVF cycles. Hum Reprod 2017;32:432-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Desmyttere S, De Rycke M, Staessen C, Liebaers I, De Schrijver F, Verpoest W, et al. Neonatal follow-up of 995 consecutively born children after embryo biopsy for PGD. Hum Reprod 2012;27:288-93.  Back to cited text no. 33
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
             

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
    Article in PDF (481 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Ovarian Stimulat...
    Perinatal Outcom...
    Perinatal Outcom...
    Perinatal Outcom...
    Perinatal Outcom...
    Perinatal Outcom...
    Perinatal Outcom...
   Conclusion
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed540    
    Printed41    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded71    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal