Article

Does subfertility explain the risk of poor perinatal outcome after IVF and ovarian hyperstimulation?

Leiden University, Leyden, South Holland, Netherlands
Human Reproduction (Impact Factor: 4.59). 12/2006; 21(12):3228-34. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del311
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether subfertility explains poor perinatal outcome after assisted conception. A secondary objective was to test the hypothesis that ovarian hyperstimulation rather than the IVF procedure may influence the perinatal outcome.
Using data from a Dutch population-based historical cohort of women treated for subfertility, we compared perinatal outcome of singletons conceived after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COHS) and IVF (IVF + COHS; n = 2239) with perinatal outcome in subfertile women who conceived spontaneously (subfertile controls; n = 6343) and in women who only received COHS (COHS only; n = 84). Furthermore, we compared perinatal outcome of singletons conceived after the transfer of thawed embryos with (Stim + Cryo; n = 66) and without COHS (Stim - Cryo; n = 73).
The odds ratios (ORs) for very low birthweight (<1500 g) and low birthweight (1500-2500 g) were 2.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.9-3.9] and 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-1.8) in the IVF + COHS group compared with the subfertile control group. The ORs for very preterm birth (<32 weeks) and for preterm birth (32-37 weeks) were 2.0 (95% CI 1.4-2.9) and 1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.8), respectively. Adjustment for confounders did not materially change these risk estimates. The difference in risk between the COHS-only group and the subfertile group was significant only for very low birthweight (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.1-11.4), but the association became weaker after adjustment for maternal age and primiparity (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.0-10.4). No significant difference in birthweight and preterm delivery was found between the group of children conceived after ovarian stimulation/ovulation induction and (Stim + Cryo) and the group of children conceived after embryo transfer of thawed embryos in a spontaneous cycle without ovarian stimulation/ovulation induction (Stim - Cryo).
The poor perinatal outcome in this database could not be explained by subfertility and suggests that other factors may be important in the known association between assisted conception and poor perinatal outcome.

0 Followers
 · 
81 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Critical data gaps remain regarding infertility treatment and child development. We assessed the utility of a birth certificate registry for developing a population cohort aimed at answering such questions. We utilised the Upstate New York livebirth registry (n = 201 063) to select births conceived with (n = 4024) infertility treatment or exposed infants, who were then frequency-matched by residence to a random sample of infants conceived without (n = 14 455) treatment or unexposed infants, 2008-10. Mothers were recruited at 2-4 months postpartum and queried about their reproductive histories, including infertility treatment for comparison with birth certificate data. Overall, 1297 (32%) mothers of exposed and 3692 of unexposed (26%) infants enrolled. Twins represented 22% of each infant group. The percentage of infants conceived with/without infertility treatment was similar whether derived from the birth registry or maternal report: 71% none, 16% drugs or intrauterine insemination, and 14% assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Concordant reporting between the two data sources was 93% for no treatment, 88% for ART, and 83% for fertility drugs, but differed by plurality. Exposed infants had slightly (P < 0.01) earlier gestations than unexposed infants (38.3 ± 2.8 and 38.7 ± 2.7 weeks, respectively) based upon birth certificates but not maternal report (38.7 ± 2.7 and 38.7 ± 2.9, respectively). Conversely, mean birthweight was comparable using birth certificates (3157 ± 704 and 3194 ± 679 g, respectively), but differed using maternal report (3167 ± 692 and 3224 ± 661, respectively P < 0.05). The birth certificate registry is a suitable sampling framework as measured by concordance with maternally reported infertility treatment. Future efforts should address the impact of factors associated with discordant reporting on research findings.
    Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 03/2014; DOI:10.1111/ppe.12121 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Do singletons conceived following assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) have significantly different hospital utilization, and therefore costs, compared with non-ART children during the first 5 years of life? ART singletons have longer hospital birth-admissions and a small increased risk of re-admission during the first 5 years of life resulting in higher costs of hospital care. ART singletons are at greater risk of adverse perinatal outcomes compared with non-ART singletons. Long-term physical and mental health outcomes of ART singletons are generally reassuring. There is a scarcity of information on health service utilization and the health economic impact of ART conceived children. A population cohort study using linked birth, hospital and death records. Perinatal outcomes, hospital utilization and costs, and mortality rates were compared for non-ART and ART singletons to 5 years. Adjustments were made for maternal age, parity, sex, birth year, socioeconomic status and funding source. Australian Diagnosis Related Groups cost-weights were used to derive costs. All costs are reported in 2009/2010 Australian dollars. All babies born in Western Australia between 1994 and 2003 were included; 224 425 non-ART singletons and 2199 ART conceived singletons. Hospital admission and death records in Western Australia linked to 2008 were used. Overall, ART singletons had a significantly longer length of stay during the birth-admission (mean difference 1.8 days, P < 0.001) and a 20% increased risk of being admitted during the first 5 years of life. The average adjusted difference in hospital admission costs up to 5 years of age was $2490, with most of the additional cost occurring during the birth-admission ($1473). The independent residual cost associated with ART conception was $342 during the birth-admission and an additional $548 up to 5 years of age, indicating that being conceived as an ART child predicts not only higher birth-admission costs but excess costs to at least 5 years of age. This study could not investigate the impact of different ART practices and techniques on perinatal outcomes or hospital utilization, nor could it adjust for parental characteristics such as cause of infertility and treatment-seeking behaviour. This study related to ART treatment undertaken before 2003. Clinicians and patients should be aware of the risk of poorer perinatal outcomes and increased hospitalization of ART singletons compared with non-ART singletons. These differences are significant enough to affect health-care resource consumption, but are substantially and significantly less than those associated with ART multiple birth infants. Understanding the short- and long-term health services and economic impact of ART is important for setting the research agenda in ART, for informing economic evaluations of infertility and treatment strategies, and for providing an important input to clinical and administrative decision making. No specific funding was used to undertake this study and the authors report no conflicts of interest. A number of the authors receive Research Grants to their institutions from the Australian Government. G.M.C. receives grant support to her institution from the Australian Government, Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant No LP1002165; ARC Linkage Grant Partner Organisations are IVFAustralia, Melbourne IVF and Queensland Fertility Group. V.P.H. is employed as an Economics Research Associate on the same grant. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS NUMBER: NA.
    Human Reproduction 12/2013; 29(3). DOI:10.1093/humrep/det397 · 4.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Zusammenfassung Die vorliegende Arbeit fasst erwiesene und theoretische Risiken der ovariellen Stimulation im Rahmen der IVF-Behandlung zusammen. Sie basiert auf einer selektiven Literaturübersicht. Behandelt werden Adnextorsion, ovarielles Überstimulationssyndrom (OHSS), Thrombose und Thrombembolie, epigenetische Risiken der ovariellen Stimulation, Risiken der Prioneninfektion bei Verwendung urinärer Gonadotropine, sowie Krebserkrankungen nach Stimulation der Eierstöcke. Die Inzidenz von Adnextorsion, OHSS und Thrombosen nach ovarieller Stimulation ist umfangreich untersucht worden. Da diese Inzidenzzahlen an großen und heterogenen Kollektiven erfasst wurden, ist naheliegend, dass für die Patientenberatung eine individuelle Risikobewertung notwendig ist. Ein konkreter Hinweis, dass die ovarielle Stimulation ein unabhängiger Risikofaktor für epigenetische Veränderungen bei Kindern nach IVF darstellt, steht bisher aus. Ebenso ist das Risiko für eine Übertragung von Prionen durch urinäre Gonadotropine theoretischer Natur. Infertilität, bzw. die Anwendung von Clomifen und Gonadotropinen wurde mit einer Inzidenzerhöhung für verschiedene Krebserkrankungen in Zusammenhang gebracht. Eine Verursachung eines erhöhten Risikos für maligne Erkrankungen durch ovarielle Stimulation ist jedoch aus den verfügbaren Daten nicht ableitbar.
    Der Gynäkologe 10/2007; 40(10):773-779. DOI:10.1007/s00129-007-2046-z

Preview

Download
0 Downloads