Anna Blázquez1, Désirée García2, Amelia Rodríguez1, Rita Vassena3, Francesc Figueras4, Valérie Vernaeve1,2. 1. Clínica EUGIN, Travessera de les Corts 322, Barcelona, 08029, Spain. 2. Fundació Privada EUGIN, Barcelona, 08029, Spain. 3. Clínica EUGIN, Travessera de les Corts 322, Barcelona, 08029, Spain. rvassena@eugin.es. 4. BCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu), IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona and Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBER-ER), Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine whether there is a higher incidence of preeclampsia (PE) in pregnancies achieved by oocyte donation (OD) compared with pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes (IVF). METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify relevant studies published from January 1994 until April 2015 with at least an abstract in English using PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinicaltrials.gov. The 11 studies included in this systematic review were retrospective and prospective cohort studies of women reporting results on the association between oocyte donation vs. in vitro fertilization (exposure) and preeclampsia (outcome). RESULTS: Oocyte donation is a risk factor for the development of PE compared to IVF cycles, with a weighted OR of 3.12 under a fixed effects method (FEM: no heterogeneity between the studies). The weighted OR under a random effects model was 2.9 (REM: heterogeneity between the studies). The meta-regression analysis showed that neither multiple pregnancies (estimate = 0.08; p = 0.19) nor patient age (estimate = -2.29; p = 0.13) significantly explained the variability of the effect of oocyte donation on PE. Q statistic was 12.78 (p = 0.237), suggesting absence of heterogeneity between the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancies achieved by oocyte donation confer a threefold increase in the likelihood of developing PE than those achieved by in vitro fertilization with own oocytes. Physicians should be aware of this risk in order to both counsel patients and monitor pregnancies accordingly.
PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine whether there is a higher incidence of preeclampsia (PE) in pregnancies achieved by oocyte donation (OD) compared with pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes (IVF). METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify relevant studies published from January 1994 until April 2015 with at least an abstract in English using PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinicaltrials.gov. The 11 studies included in this systematic review were retrospective and prospective cohort studies of women reporting results on the association between oocyte donation vs. in vitro fertilization (exposure) and preeclampsia (outcome). RESULTS: Oocyte donation is a risk factor for the development of PE compared to IVF cycles, with a weighted OR of 3.12 under a fixed effects method (FEM: no heterogeneity between the studies). The weighted OR under a random effects model was 2.9 (REM: heterogeneity between the studies). The meta-regression analysis showed that neither multiple pregnancies (estimate = 0.08; p = 0.19) nor patient age (estimate = -2.29; p = 0.13) significantly explained the variability of the effect of oocyte donation on PE. Q statistic was 12.78 (p = 0.237), suggesting absence of heterogeneity between the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancies achieved by oocyte donation confer a threefold increase in the likelihood of developing PE than those achieved by in vitro fertilization with own oocytes. Physicians should be aware of this risk in order to both counsel patients and monitor pregnancies accordingly.
Entities:
Keywords:
In vitro fertilization; Induced hypertension; Oocyte donation; Preeclampsia; Pregnancy
Authors: M L P van der Hoorn; E E L O Lashley; D W Bianchi; F H J Claas; C M C Schonkeren; S A Scherjon Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Tamara Tilburgs; Dave L Roelen; Barbara J van der Mast; Godelieve M de Groot-Swings; Carin Kleijburg; Sicco A Scherjon; Frans H Claas Journal: J Immunol Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Kim van Bentem; Marie-Louise van der Hoorn; Jan van Lith; Saskia le Cessie; Eileen Lashley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.006