Any Beltran Anzola1,2, Vanessa Pauly3,4, Debbie Montjean5, Line Meddeb6, Cendrine Geoffroy-Siraudin5, Roland Sambuc3,4, Pierre Boyer5, Marie-José Gervoise-Boyer5. 1. Département de Santé Publique et Maladies Chroniques, Unité de recherche EA 3279, Faculté de médecine, Aix-Marseille Université, 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13005, Marseille, France. beltran_any@yahoo.com. 2. Service de Médecine et Biologie de la Reproduction, Hôpital Saint Joseph, 26 Boulevard du Louvain, 13008, Marseille, France. beltran_any@yahoo.com. 3. Département de Santé Publique et Maladies Chroniques, Unité de recherche EA 3279, Faculté de médecine, Aix-Marseille Université, 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13005, Marseille, France. 4. Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille - Service d'information médicale, Hôpital de la Conception, 147 Boulevard Baille, 13005, Marseille, France. 5. Service de Médecine et Biologie de la Reproduction, Hôpital Saint Joseph, 26 Boulevard du Louvain, 13008, Marseille, France. 6. Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille - Service des Maladies Infectieuses, Hôpital de la Conception, 147 Boulevard Baille, 13005, Marseille, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate and compare the prevalence of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived after four procedures of assisted reproduction technologies (ART). METHODS: The prevalence of congenital anomalies was compared retrospectively between 2750 babies and fetuses conceived between 2001 and 2014 in vitro fertilization with standard insemination (IVF), IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), IVF with frozen embryo transfer (FET-IVF), and ICSI with frozen embryo transfer (FET-ICSI). Congenital anomalies were described according to European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) classification. The parental backgrounds, biologic parameters, obstetric parameters, and perinatal outcomes were compared between babies and fetuses with and without congenital anomalies. Data were analyzed by the generalized estimating equation. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2014, a total of 2477 evolutionary pregnancies were notified. Among these pregnancies, 2379 were included in the analysis. One hundred thirty-four babies and fetuses had a congenital anomaly (4.9%). The major prevalences found among the recorded anomalies were congenital heart defects, chromosomal anomalies, and urinary defects. However, the risk of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived after FET was not increased compared with babies and fetuses conceived after fresh embryo transfer, even when adjusted for confounding factors (p = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: There is no increased risk of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived by fresh versus frozen embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization with and without micromanipulation. Indeed, distribution of congenital anomalies found in our population is consistent with the high prevalence of congenital heart defects, chromosomal anomalies, and urinary defects that have been found by other authors in children conceived by infertile couples when compared to children conceived spontaneously.
PURPOSE: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate and compare the prevalence of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived after four procedures of assisted reproduction technologies (ART). METHODS: The prevalence of congenital anomalies was compared retrospectively between 2750 babies and fetuses conceived between 2001 and 2014 in vitro fertilization with standard insemination (IVF), IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), IVF with frozen embryo transfer (FET-IVF), and ICSI with frozen embryo transfer (FET-ICSI). Congenital anomalies were described according to European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) classification. The parental backgrounds, biologic parameters, obstetric parameters, and perinatal outcomes were compared between babies and fetuses with and without congenital anomalies. Data were analyzed by the generalized estimating equation. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2014, a total of 2477 evolutionary pregnancies were notified. Among these pregnancies, 2379 were included in the analysis. One hundred thirty-four babies and fetuses had a congenital anomaly (4.9%). The major prevalences found among the recorded anomalies were congenital heart defects, chromosomal anomalies, and urinary defects. However, the risk of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived after FET was not increased compared with babies and fetuses conceived after fresh embryo transfer, even when adjusted for confounding factors (p = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: There is no increased risk of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived by fresh versus frozen embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization with and without micromanipulation. Indeed, distribution of congenital anomalies found in our population is consistent with the high prevalence of congenital heart defects, chromosomal anomalies, and urinary defects that have been found by other authors in children conceived by infertile couples when compared to children conceived spontaneously.
Entities:
Keywords:
Congenital anomalies; Frozen embryo transfer; In vitro fertilization; Intra cytoplasmic sperm injection; Perinatal outcomes
Authors: Rolv T Lie; Anita Lyngstadaas; Karen Helene Ørstavik; Leiv S Bakketeig; Geir Jacobsen; Tom Tanbo Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Patricia A Boyd; Martin Haeusler; Ingeborg Barisic; Maria Loane; Ester Garne; Helen Dolk Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2011-03-07
Authors: Bengt Källén; Orvar Finnström; Anna Lindam; Emma Nilsson; Karl-Gösta Nygren; Petra Olausson Otterblad Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2010-03
Authors: U B Wennerholm; K Albertsson-Wikland; C Bergh; L Hamberger; A Niklasson; L Nilsson; K Thiringer; M Wennergren; M Wikland; M P Borres Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-04-11 Impact factor: 79.321