Perinatal outcome of pregnancies following<i>in vitro</i>fertilization and ovulation induction

Silberstein, Tali; Levy, Amalia; Harlev, Avi; Saphier, Oshra; Sheiner, Eyal

doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.856415

Cited by 50 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…22 A study by Silberstein, et al compared the risks of certain severe adverse outcomes among groups with ART, non-ART ovulation induction and spontaneous conceptions, observing a significant trend of highest to lowest risk across the three groups, respectively. 23 We observed comparable trends across our three comparison groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Severe Maternal Morbidity and the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Massachusetts

Belanoff

Declercq

Diop

et al. 2016

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess whether risk of severe maternal morbidity at delivery differed for women who conceived using assisted reproductive technology (ART), those with indicators of subfertility but no ART (“subfertile”), and those who had neither ART nor subfertility (“fertile”). Methods This retrospective cohort study was part of the larger Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology (MOSART). To construct the MOSART database and identify ART deliveries, we linked ART treatment records to birth certificates and maternal and infant hospitalization records occurring in Massachusetts between 2004 and 2010. An algorithm of ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes identified severe maternal morbidity. We used Logistic Generalized Estimating Equations to estimate odds of severe maternal morbidity associated with fertility status, adjusting for maternal demographic and health factors and gestational age, stratifying on plurality and method of delivery. Results The prevalence of severe maternal morbidity among this population (n = 458,918) was 1.16%. The overall, crude prevalences of severe maternal morbidity among fertile, subfertile and ART deliveries were 1.09%, 1.44% and 3.14%, respectively. The most common indicator of severe maternal morbidity was blood transfusion. In multivariable analyses, among singletons, ART was associated with increased odds of severe maternal morbidity compared to both fertile (Vaginal: aOR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.78 – 2.88; cesarean: aOR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.40 – 1.98, respectively) and subfertile (vaginal: aOR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.30 – 3.00; cesarean: aOR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.30 – 2.35, respectively) deliveries. Among twins, only cesarean ART deliveries had significantly greater severe maternal morbidity compared to cesarean fertile deliveries (aOR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.93). Conclusions Women who conceive through ART may have elevated risk severe maternal morbidity at delivery, largely indicated by blood transfusion, even when compared with a subfertile population. Further research should elucidate mechanisms underlying this risk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Severe Maternal Morbidity and the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Massachusetts

Belanoff

Declercq

Diop

et al. 2016

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The odds of preeclampsia is significantly increased in women undergoing ART (OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.03-4.72) after controlling for factors such as multiple gestations [292]. A retrospective population-based study of singleton pregnancies conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and ovulation induction compared to spontaneously conceived pregnancies showed a significant linear association in the incidence of severe preeclampsia in the ART groups (2.7% in IVF, 1.8% in ovulation induction, and 1.1% in the comparison group, p < 0.001) [293]. However, in another study, using propensity score matching analysis, the association between IVF and preeclampsia was found to be weaker than when conventional adjustments were made, suggesting potential confounding of the association between IVF and preeclampsia by multiple factors [294].…”

Section: Consensus Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Kidney Development on the Life Course: A Consensus Document for Action

Brenner

Charlton

Luyckx

et al. 2017

Nephron

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a significant impact on global morbidity and mortality. The Low Birth Weight and Nephron Number Working Group has prepared a consensus document aimed to address the relatively neglected issue for the developmental programming of hypertension and CKD. It emerged from a workshop held on April 2, 2016, including eminent internationally recognized experts in the field of obstetrics, neonatology, and nephrology. Through multidisciplinary engagement, the goal of the workshop was to highlight the association between fetal and childhood development and an increased risk of adult diseases, focusing on hypertension and CKD, and to suggest possible practical solutions for the future. The recommendations for action of the consensus workshop are the results of combined clinical experience, shared research expertise, and a review of the literature. They highlight the need to act early to prevent CKD and other related noncommunicable diseases later in life by reducing low birth weight, small for gestational age, prematurity, and low nephron numbers at birth through coordinated interventions. Meeting the current unmet needs would help to define the most cost-effective strategies and to optimize interventions to limit or interrupt the developmental programming cycle of CKD later in life, especially in the poorest part of the world.

show abstract

“…The underlying reason behind a compromised implantation and clinical pregnancy potential is considered to be aging. In an effort to shed light into this phenomenon, it has been proposed that placental insufficiency and placenta accrete-both being associated with AMA and the implementation of IVF-could be involved in the pathophysiological mechanism of the age-related decline in the live birth rate [31,32]. In conclusion, the present research focuses on three strictly defined age groups of women presenting with good prognosis IVF patients of good ovarian response upon their first treatment cycle of treatment between 34 and 36 years of age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Could the Age Difference of a Single Calendar Year between Patients Undergoing IVF at 34, 35 or at 36 Years Old Affect the IVF Outcome? A Retrospective Data Analysis

Pantos¹,

Sfakianoudis²,

Grigoriadis

et al. 2020

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Clinicians are called to overcome age-related challenges in decision making during In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible impact of a single calendar year difference among patients aged 34, 35 and 36 on IVF outcomes. Materials and Methods: Medical records between 2008 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. The study group consisted of women diagnosed with tubal factor infertility. Sample size was divided in three categories at 34, 35 and 36 years of age. Embryo transfer including two blastocysts was performed for every patient. Comparisons were performed regarding hormonal profile, response to stimulation, quality of transferred embryos, positive hCG test and clinical pregnancy rate. Results: A total of 706 women were eligible to participate. Two-hundred and forty-eight women were 34, 226 were 35 while the remaining 232 were 36 years old. Regarding the hormonal profile, the number of accumulated oocytes and the quality of embryos transferred, no statistically significant difference was documented between the three age groups. Women aged 34 and 35 years old indicated a significantly increased positive hCG rate in comparison to women aged 36 years old (p-value = 0.009, p-value = 0.023, respectively). Women aged 34 and 35 years old presented with a higher clinical pregnancy rate in comparison to those aged 36 years old (p-value = 0.04, p-value = 0.05, respectively). Conclusion: A calendar year difference between patients undergoing IVF treatment at 34 or 35 years of age does not appear to exert any influence regarding outcome. When treatment involves patients above the age of 35, then a single calendar year may exert considerable impact on IVF outcome. This observation indicates that age 35 may serve as a valid cut-off point regarding IVF outcome.

show abstract

Perinatal outcome of pregnancies followingin vitrofertilization and ovulation induction

Abstract: Pregnancies conceiving following assisted reproductive techniques are at an increased risk for adverse obstetrics outcomes. The risk is higher for pregnancies following IVF compared with these conceived following ovulation induction.

Cited by 50 publications

References 14 publications

Severe Maternal Morbidity and the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Massachusetts

Severe Maternal Morbidity and the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Massachusetts

The Impact of Kidney Development on the Life Course: A Consensus Document for Action

Could the Age Difference of a Single Calendar Year between Patients Undergoing IVF at 34, 35 or at 36 Years Old Affect the IVF Outcome? A Retrospective Data Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About