Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine (대한예방의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Congenital Malformations in Infants of Mothers Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Study

  • Hoorsan, Hayedeh (Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Islamic Azad University Sanandaj Branch) ;
  • Mirmiran, Parvin (National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Chaichian, Shahla (Minimally Invasive Techniques Research Center in Women, Islamic Azad University Tehran Medical Branch) ;
  • Moradi, Yousef (Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Hoorsan, Roza (Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Islamic Azad University Tehran Medical Branch) ;
  • Jesmi, Fatemeh (Pars Advanced and Minimally Invasive Medical Manners Research Center, Pars Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2016.12.27
  • Accepted : 2017.06.20
  • Published : 2017.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate congenital malformations in infants conceived by assisted reproductive techniques (ART), compared with infants conceived spontaneously. Methods: In this study, available resources searched to find relevant articles included PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane, ProQuest, Iranmedex, Magiran, and Scientific Information Database. After extracting the necessary information from evaluated articles, meta-analysis on the articles' data was performed using Stata version 11.2. Results: In this study, from a total of 339 articles, extracted from the initial investigation, ultimately 30 articles were selected for meta-analysis that assessed the use of ART on the risk of congenital abnormalities and some birth complications on 5 470 181 infants (315 402 cases and 5 154 779 controls). The odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for low birth weight was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.36 to 2.62), preterm labor 1.79 (95% CI, 1.21 to 2.63), cardiac abnormalities 1.43 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.62), central nervous system abnormalities 1.36 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.70), urogenital system abnormalities 1.58 (95% CI, 1.28 to 1.94), musculoskeletal disorders 1.35 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.64), and chromosomal abnormalities in infants conceived by ART was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.44), which were all statistically significant, except chromosomal abnormalities. Conclusions: The risk of congenital abnormalities and some birth complications were significantly higher in ART than normal conception, while chromosomal abnormalities were not; therefore, the application of ART should be selected individually for patients by detailed assessment to reduce such risks in the population.

Keywords

References

  1. Simpson JL. Birth defects and assisted reproductive technologies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19(3):177-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2014.01.001
  2. Qin J, Sheng X, Wang H, Liang D, Tan H, Xia J. Assisted reproductive technology and risk of congenital malformations: a meta-analysis based on cohort studies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;292(4):777-798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3707-0
  3. Lu YH, Wang N, Jin F. Long-term follow-up of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2013;14(5):359-371 https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1200348
  4. Zollner U, Dietl J. Perinatal risks after IVF and ICSI. J Perinat Med 2013;41(1):17-22. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2012-0097
  5. Kazem M, Ali A. An overview of the epidemiology of primary infertility in Iran. J Reprod Infertil 2009;10(3):213-216.
  6. Yan JI, Geng L.H, Zhong Y. Birth defects in assisted reproductive technology and spontaneously conceived children: a meta-analysis. J Reprod Contracept 2013;24(4):237-252. https://doi.org/10.7669/j.issn.1001-7844.2013.04.0237
  7. Fortunato A, Tosti E. The impact of in vitro fertilization on health of the children: an update. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;154(2):125-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.10.012
  8. Henningsen AK, Pinborg A. Birth and perinatal outcomes and complications for babies conceived following ART. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19(4):234-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2014.04.001
  9. Klemetti R, Gissler M, Sevon T, Koivurova S, Ritvanen A, Hemminki E. Children born after assisted fertilization have an increased rate of major congenital anomalies. Fertil Steril 2005;84(5):1300-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.03.085
  10. Hediger ML, Bell EM, Druschel CM, Buck Louis GM. Assisted reproductive technologies and children's neurodevelopmental outcomes. Fertil Steril 2013;99(2):311-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.013
  11. Eldar-Geva T, Srebnik N, Altarescu G, Varshaver I, Brooks B, Levy-Lahad E, et al. Neonatal outcome after preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2014;102(4):1016-1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.023
  12. Olson CK, Keppler-Noreuil KM, Romitti PA, Budelier WT, Ryan G, Sparks AE, et al. In vitro fertilization is associated with an increase in major birth defects. Fertil Steril 2005;84(5):1308-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.03.086
  13. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization in Sweden: child morbidity including cancer risk. Fertil Steril 2005;84(3):605-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.03.035
  14. El-Chaar D, Yang Q, Gao J, Bottomley J, Leader A, Wen SW, et al. Risk of birth defects increased in pregnancies conceived by assisted human reproduction. Fertil Steril 2009;92(5):1557-1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.080
  15. Pinborg A, Loft A, Aaris Henningsen AK, Rasmussen S, Andersen AN. Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: the Danish National Cohort Study 1995-2006. Fertil Steril 2010;94(4):1320-1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.091
  16. Fujii M, Matsuoka R, Bergel E, van der Poel S, Okai T. Perinatal risk in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2010;94(6):2113-2117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.031
  17. Wisborg K, Ingerslev HJ, Henriksen TB. In vitro fertilization and preterm delivery, low birth weight, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit: a prospective follow-up study. Fertil Steril 2010;94(6):2102-2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.01.014
  18. Seggers J, de Walle HE, Bergman JE, Groen H, Hadders-Algra M, Bos ME, et al. Congenital anomalies in offspring of subfertile couples: a registry-based study in the northern Netherlands. Fertil Steril 2015;103(4):1001-1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.113
  19. Jwa J, Jwa SC, Kuwahara A, Yoshida A, Saito H. Risk of major congenital anomalies after assisted hatching: analysis of three-year data from the national assisted reproduction registry in Japan. Fertil Steril 2015;104(1):71-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.029
  20. Kelley-Quon LI, Tseng CH, Janzen C, Shew SB. Congenital malformations associated with assisted reproductive technology: a California statewide analysis. J Pediatr Surg 2013;48(6):1218-1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.03.017
  21. Merlob P, Sapir O, Sulkes J, Fisch B. The prevalence of major congenital malformations during two periods of time, 1986-1994 and 1995-2002 in newborns conceived by assisted reproduction technology. Eur J Med Genet 2005;48(1):5-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2005.01.019
  22. Wen SW, Leader A, White RR, Leveille MC, Wilkie V, Zhou J, et al. A comprehensive assessment of outcomes in pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;150(2):160-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.028
  23. Funke S, Flach E, Kiss I, Sandor J, Vida G, Bodis J, et al. Male reproductive tract abnormalities: more common after assisted reproduction? Early Hum Dev 2010;86(9):547-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.06.015
  24. Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, de Klerk N, Burton P, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and major birth defects in Western Australia. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120(4):852-863. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318269c282
  25. Heisey AS, Bell EM, Herdt-Losavio ML, Druschel C. Surveillance of congenital malformations in infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology or other fertility treatments. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2015;103(2):119-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23355
  26. Reefhuis J, Honein MA, Schieve LA, Correa A, Hobbs CA, Rasmussen SA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. Hum Reprod 2009;24(2):360-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den387
  27. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med 2012;366(19):1803-1813. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1008095
  28. Halliday JL, Ukoumunne OC, Baker HW, Breheny S, Jaques AM, Garrett C, et al. Increased risk of blastogenesis birth defects, arising in the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, after assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 2010;25(1):59-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep364
  29. Ho CH, Peng FS, Chen HF, Lien YR, Chen SU, Yang YS. Twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology: maternal and perinatal outcomes. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2005;44(4):332-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1028-4559(09)60166-2
  30. Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Otterblad PO. Congenital malformations in infants born after in vitro fertilization in Sweden. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2010;88(3):137-143.
  31. Sagot P, Bechoua S, Ferdynus C, Facy A, Flamm X, Gouyon JB, et al. Similarly increased congenital anomaly rates after intrauterine insemination and IVF technologies: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2012;27(3):902-909. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der443
  32. Shevell T, Malone FD, Vidaver J, Porter TF, Luthy DA, Comstock CH, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106(5 Pt 1):1039-1045. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000183593.24583.7c
  33. Yang H, Choi YS, Nam KH, Kwon JY, Park YW, Kim YH. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancies according to methods of conception: spontaneous versus in-vitro fertilization. Twin Res Hum Genet 2011;14(1):98-103. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.14.1.98
  34. 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(6):1637-1643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.128
  35. Bonduelle M, Wennerholm UB, Loft A, Tarlatzis BC, Peters C, Henriet S, et al. A multi-centre cohort study of the physical health of 5-year-old children conceived after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Hum Reprod 2005;20(2):413-419. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh592
  36. Adler-Levy Y, Lunenfeld E, Levy A. Obstetric outcome of twin pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization and ovulation induction compared with those conceived spontaneously. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;133(2):173-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.08.010
  37. Barat SH, Basirat Z, Bouzari Z, Yazdani SH, Zarin KR. Comparison of perinatal outcomes of twin births conceived using assisted reproduction technology versus spontaneous. J Babol Univ Med Sci 2009;11(2):49-53.
  38. Zwink N, Jenetzky E, Hirsch K, Reifferscheid P, Schmiedeke E, Schmidt D, et al. Assisted reproductive techniques and risk of exstrophy-epispadias complex: a German case-control study. J Urol 2013;189(4):1524-1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.108
  39. Farhangniya M, Dortaj Rabori E, Mozafari Kermani R, Haghdoost AA, Bahrampour A, Bagheri P, et al. Comparison of congenital abnormalities of infants conceived by assisted reproductive techniques versus infants with natural conception in Tehran. Int J Fertil Steril 2013;7(3):217-224.
  40. Hansen M, Bower C. The impact of assisted reproductive technologies on intra-uterine growth and birth defects in singletons. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19(4):228-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2014.03.002
  41. Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18(5):485-503. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms018
  42. Jie Z, Yiling D, Ling Y. Association of assisted reproductive technology with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Iran J Reprod Med 2015;13(3):169-180.
  43. Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, de Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19(4):330-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt006
  44. Jamshidi R, Neisani Samani L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes in primigravida women with infertility treatment ones at spontaneous pregnancies admitted to three hospitals in Tehran-1391. J Urmia Nurs Midwifery Fac 2014;12(7):506-514.
  45. Hajishafiha M, Kiarang N, Tayeb Gasemi J, Shahbazi Z, Asadi N, Oshnoue S. Comparison between growth development of children conceived by ICSI and children conceived natural pregnancy. J Urmia Univ Med Sci 2014;24(11):922-926.
  46. Yasaei FA, Ataei M. Perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancies obtained after in vitro fertilization: comparison with twin pregnancies obtained spontaneous or after ovarian stimulation. Ann Mil Health Sci Res 2008;6(1):83-86.
  47. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2004;328(7434):261. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.37957.560278.EE
  48. Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103(3):551-563. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000114989.84822.51
  49. McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A, et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;146(2):138-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.035
  50. McGovern PG, Llorens AJ, Skurnick JH, Weiss G, Goldsmith LT. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer or gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2004;82(6): 1514-1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.038
  51. Wen J, Jiang J, Ding C, Dai J, Liu Y, Xia Y, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012;97(6): 1331-1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.053
  52. European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM); European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Kupka MS, D'Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2016;31(2):233-248. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev319

Cited by

  1. Severity of congenital heart defects associated with assisted reproductive technologies: Case series and review of the literature vol.110, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1228
  2. Offspring's health after IVF (literature review) vol.25, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20192503128
  3. Comparison of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Outcome with Sperm Selection Techniques in Oligoasthenozoospermic Males: A Randomized Controlled Trial vol.21, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.70656
  4. Epigenetics and Neurological Disorders in ART vol.20, pp.17, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20174169
  5. Prevalence, types, and malformations in congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract in newborns: a retrospective hospital-based study vol.45, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0635-9
  6. Clinical Application of Cell-Free DNA Sequencing-Based Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, 13 and Sex Chromosome Aneuploidy in a Mixed-Risk Population in Iran vol.47, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1159/000501014
  7. Repeated use of medications for ovulation induction after unsuccessful treatment: A cause of concern for infertile couples vol.18, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v18i1.6205
  8. Effects of the normal sperm morphology rate on the clinical and neonatal outcomes of conventional IVF cycles vol.52, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13568
  9. Is a Fetal Echocardiography Necessary in IVF‐ICSI Pregnancies After Anatomic Survey? vol.48, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22850
  10. Hearing Screening Test Results of Newborns Conceived by Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: A Retrospective Study of Tertiary Referral Center vol.39, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/15513815.2019.1651804
  11. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between ICSI and chromosome abnormalities vol.27, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmab005
  12. Expression and DNA Methylation Status of the Imprinted Genes PEG10 and L3MBTL1 in the Umbilical Cord Blood and Placenta of the Offspring of Assisted Reproductive Technology vol.28, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-020-00417-x
  13. Maternal and neonatal outcome and children’s development after medically assisted reproduction with in-vitro matured oocytes-a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.27, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmaa056
  14. Maternal effect genes: Update and review of evidence for a link with birth defects vol.3, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100067