Literature DB >> 26293785

Physical health of singleton children born after frozen embryo transfer using slow freezing: a 3-year follow-up study.

S Pelkonen1, M Gissler2, S Koivurova3, S Lehtinen4, H Martikainen3, A-L Hartikainen3, A Tiitinen5.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Are there differences in the physical health of singleton children born after frozen embryo transfer (FET) compared with children born after fresh embryo transfer (fresh ET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Register-based health indicators were similar among FET and fresh ET singletons during a 3-year follow-up. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Large cohort studies have shown that perinatal outcomes are similar or even better in FET than fresh ET children. The early childhood morbidity among FET and fresh ET children has been shown to be quite similar, but so far these studies have been small. The short-term health outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) children have been shown to be slightly worse compared with spontaneously conceived children. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This register-based study includes women who had undergone ART treatments leading to singleton live births (n = 4758 children) in 1995-2006. A 10% random sample of women with spontaneous pregnancies from the Finnish Medical Birth Register (FMBR) served as the reference group (n = 31 137 children). The children were identified through the FMBR by using the mother's personal identification (ID) number. Children's ID numbers were linked with two nationwide registries; the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register and the Cause-of-Death Register at Statistics Finland. Information on all visits was received until 2009 using ICD-10 codes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: The study includes 1825 children born after FET, 2933 children born after fresh ET and 31 137 children born after spontaneous pregnancies. The risk estimates for diseases were adjusted for the child's year of birth and maternal age, parity, socio-economic status and prematurity. The study focused on the differences between FET and fresh ET children. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Most health indicators were similar among FET and fresh ET children during the 3-year follow-up. The most common discharge diagnoses, including gastroenteritis and colitis, otitis, upper and lower respiratory diseases, asthma and allergies were similar between the ART groups. A large proportion of FET children (70.1%) and fresh ET children (69.9%) had visited a hospital at least once (P = 0.877). The risk of hospital admission did not differ between the two groups after adjusting for premature births [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.01; 0.88-1.17]. Comparing with children born after spontaneously conceived pregnancies, the risk of hospital admission was slightly increased in the ART group, even after adjusting for premature births (aOR 1.10; 1.02-1.19). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the study design, we were not able to control for some parental background factors, such as the cause and length of infertility. Furthermore, the health registries do not include data on the growth of the children. Our findings are generalizable only to the slow-freezing method. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: Our study provides further evidence of the safety of embryo cryopreservation. The early physical health of FET children is similar to that of children born after fresh ET. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by the University Hospital of Oulu and Helsinki, Finland. The National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) covered the data linkages and the work of Mika Gissler. There are no competing interests to be reported.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  assisted reproductive technology; childhood morbidity; frozen embryo transfer; in vitro fertilization; infertility

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26293785     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  8 in total

Review 1.  Association between childhood asthma and history of assisted reproduction techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sofia Tsabouri; Georgios Lavasidis; Anthoula Efstathiadou; Margarita Papasavva; Vanessa Bellou; Helio Bergantini; Konstantinos Priftis; Evangelia E Ntzani
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 2.  When Should We Freeze Embryos? Current Data for Fresh and Frozen Embryo Replacement IVF Cycles.

Authors:  Michail Kalinderis; Kallirhoe Kalinderi; Garima Srivastava; Roy Homburg
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  DMSO induces drastic changes in human cellular processes and epigenetic landscape in vitro.

Authors:  M Verheijen; M Lienhard; Y Schrooders; O Clayton; R Nudischer; S Boerno; B Timmermann; N Selevsek; R Schlapbach; H Gmuender; S Gotta; J Geraedts; R Herwig; J Kleinjans; F Caiment
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  A freeze-all strategy does not increase live birth rates in women of advanced reproductive age.

Authors:  K Lattes; S López; M A Checa; M Brassesco; D García; R Vassena
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 5.  The Future of Cryopreservation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies.

Authors:  Ernesto Bosch; Michel De Vos; Peter Humaidan
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 5.555

6.  Integrated multi-omics reveal epigenomic disturbance of assisted reproductive technologies in human offspring.

Authors:  Wei Chen; Yong Peng; Xinyi Ma; Siming Kong; Shuangyan Tan; Yuan Wei; Yangyu Zhao; Wenxin Zhang; Yang Wang; Liying Yan; Jie Qiao
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 8.143

7.  Which is better for mothers and babies: fresh or frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer?

Authors:  Meiling Yang; Li Lin; Chunli Sha; Taoqiong Li; Wujiang Gao; Lu Chen; Ying Wu; Yanping Ma; Xiaolan Zhu
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 8.  Freeze-all, for whom, when, and how.

Authors:  Paula Celada; Ernesto Bosch
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 2.384

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.