Literature DB >> 29291410

Effect of frozen/thawed embryo transfer on birthweight, macrosomia, and low birthweight rates in US singleton infants.

Julia F Litzky1, Sheree L Boulet2, Navid Esfandiari3, Yujia Zhang2, Dmitry M Kissin2, Regan N Theiler4, Carmen J Marsit5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Singleton infants conceived using assisted reproductive technology have lower average birthweights than naturally conceived infants and are more likely to be born low birthweight (<2500 gr). Lower birthweights are associated with increased infant and child mortality and poor adult health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes. Data from registry and single-center studies suggest that frozen/thawed embryo transfer may be associated with larger birthweights. To date, however, a nationwide, full-population study on United States infants born using frozen/thawed embryo transfer has not been reported.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the effect of frozen/thawed vs fresh embryo transfer on birthweight outcomes for singleton, term infants conceived using in vitro fertilization in the United States between 2007 and 2014, including average birthweight and the risks of both macrosomia (>4000 g) and low birthweight (<2500 g). STUDY
DESIGN: We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System to compare birthweight outcomes of live-born singleton, autologous oocyte, term (37-43 weeks) infants. Generalized linear models for all infants and stratified by infant sex were used to assess the relationship between frozen/thawed embryo transfer and birthweight, in grams. Infertility diagnosis, year of treatment, maternal age, maternal obstetric history, maternal and paternal race, and infant gestational age and sex were included in the models. Missing race data were imputed. The adjusted relative risks for macrosomia and low birthweight were evaluated using multivariable predicted marginal proportions from logistic regression models.
RESULTS: In total, 180,184 singleton, term infants were included, with 55,898 (31.02%) having been conceived from frozen/thawed embryos. Frozen/thawed embryo transfer was associated with, on average, a 142 g increase in birthweight compared with infants born after fresh embryo transfer (P < .001). An interaction between infant sex and embryo transfer type was significant (P < .0001), with frozen/thawed embryo transfer having a larger effect on male infants by 16 g. The adjusted risk of a macrosomic infant was 1.70 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.76) following frozen/thawed embryo transfer than fresh embryo transfer. However, adjusted risk of low birthweight following frozen/thawed embryo transfer was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.56) compared with fresh embryo transfer.
CONCLUSION: Frozen/thawed embryo transfer, in comparison with fresh embryo transfer, was associated with increased average birthweight in singleton, autologous oocytes, term infants born in the United States, with a significant interaction between frozen/thawed embryo transfer and infant sex. The risk of macrosomia following frozen/thawed embryo transfer was greater than that following fresh embryo transfer, but the risk of low birthweight among frozen/thawed embryo transfer infants was significantly decreased in comparison with fresh embryo transfer infants.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  National ART Surveillance System; birthweight; fresh embryo transfer; frozen/thawed embryo transfer; in vitro fertilization; low birthweight; macrosomia

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29291410      PMCID: PMC5878119          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  31 in total

1.  Independent factors influencing large-for-gestation birth weight in singletons born after in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Sara Korosec; Helena Ban Frangez; Lili Steblovnik; Ivan Verdenik; Eda Vrtacnik Bokal
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Vitaly A Kushnir; Andrea Vidali; David H Barad; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Large baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique?

Authors:  A Pinborg; A A Henningsen; A Loft; S S Malchau; J Forman; A Nyboe Andersen
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group.

Authors:  Ulla-Britt Wennerholm; Anna-Karina Aaris Henningsen; Liv Bente Romundstad; Christina Bergh; Anja Pinborg; Rolv Skjaerven; Julie Forman; Mika Gissler; Karl Gösta Nygren; Aila Tiitinen
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Perinatal morbidity after in vitro fertilization is lower with frozen embryo transfer.

Authors:  Suleena Kansal Kalra; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Lauren Milman; Clarisa R Gracia; Christos Coutifaris; Kurt T Barnhart
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Higher β-HCG concentrations and higher birthweights ensue from single vitrified embryo transfers.

Authors:  Kevin N Keane; Kamarul Bahyah Mustafa; Peter Hinchliffe; Jason Conceicao; John L Yovich
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.828

7.  Comparison of birth weights in patients randomly assigned to fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

Authors:  Bruce S Shapiro; Said T Daneshmand; Carrie E Bedient; Forest C Garner
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 8.  Birth weight and long-term overweight risk: systematic review and a meta-analysis including 643,902 persons from 66 studies and 26 countries globally.

Authors:  Karen Schellong; Sandra Schulz; Thomas Harder; Andreas Plagemann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  All-Cause Mortality of Low Birthweight Infants in Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence: Population Study of England and Wales.

Authors:  W John Watkins; Sarah J Kotecha; Sailesh Kotecha
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 10.  Risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after high technology infertility treatment: a comprehensive systematic review.

Authors:  Stefano Palomba; Roy Homburg; Susanna Santagni; Giovanni Battista La Sala; Raoul Orvieto
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 5.211

View more
  15 in total

1.  Preimplantation genetic testing and chances of a healthy live birth amongst recipients of fresh donor oocytes in the United States.

Authors:  Cassandra Roeca; Rachel Johnson; Nichole Carlson; Alex J Polotsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos.

Authors:  Sonali Singh; Elie Hobeika; Eric S Knochenhauer; Michael L Traub
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  Epigenetically regulated imprinted gene expression associated with IVF and infertility: possible influence of prenatal stress and depression.

Authors:  Julia F Litzky; Carmen J Marsit
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Potential influence of the corpus luteum on circulating reproductive and volume regulatory hormones, angiogenic and immunoregulatory factors in pregnant women.

Authors:  Kirk P Conrad; Georgia M Graham; Yueh-Yun Chi; Xiaoman Zhai; Minjie Li; R Stan Williams; Alice Rhoton-Vlasak; Mark S Segal; Charles E Wood; Maureen Keller-Wood
Journal:  Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 4.310

5.  Examination of fetal growth trajectories following infertility treatment.

Authors:  Melody Besharati; Frauke von Versen-Höynck; Kris Kapphahn; Valerie Lynn Baker
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Perinatal complications and live-birth outcomes following assisted reproductive technology: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ling-Ling Lei; Yong-Lian Lan; Shu-Yu Wang; Wei Feng; Zhi-Jin Zhai
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2019-10-20       Impact factor: 2.628

7.  Association Between Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index and Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Singleton Pregnancies After Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Authors:  Hanxiang Sun; Yang Liu; Shijia Huang; Xiaosong Liu; Guohua Li; Qiaoling Du
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 5.555

8.  Identifying a possible factor for the increased newborn size in singleton pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology using cryopreserved embryos, in comparison with fresh embryos.

Authors:  Rena Ishii; Akiko Shoda; Michiyo Kubo; Satiko Okazaki; Minori Suzuki; Riho Okawa; Megumi Enomoto; Manami Shitanaka; Yoko Fujita; Kazuki Nakao; Nobutaka Shimada; Michiharu Horikawa; Hiroaki Negishi; Yuji Taketani
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2018-05-06

9.  Preparation of the Endometrium for Frozen Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sezcan Mumusoglu; Mehtap Polat; Irem Yarali Ozbek; Gurkan Bozdag; Evangelos G Papanikolaou; Sandro C Esteves; Peter Humaidan; Hakan Yarali
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 5.555

10.  Cohort profile: a national, population-based cohort of children born after assisted conception in the UK (1992-2009): methodology and birthweight analysis.

Authors:  Mitana Purkayastha; Stephen A Roberts; Julian Gardiner; Daniel R Brison; Scott M Nelson; Deborah Lawlor; Barbara Luke; Alastair Sutcliffe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.