Literature DB >> 29572867

Trends over time in congenital malformations in live-born children conceived after assisted reproductive technology.

Anna-Karina A Henningsen1, Christina Bergh2, Rolv Skjaerven3,4, Aila Tiitinen5, Ulla-Britt Wennerholm6, Liv B Romundstad7,8,9, Mika Gissler10,11, Signe Opdahl8,9, Anders Nyboe Andersen1, Øjvind Lidegaard12, Julie L Forman13, Anja Pinborg14.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Children born after assisted reproductive technology, particularly singletons, have been shown to have an increased risk of congenital malformations compared with children born after spontaneous conception. We wished to study whether there has been a change in the past 20 years in the risk of major congenital malformations in children conceived after assisted reproductive technology compared with children spontaneously conceived.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Population-based cohort study including 90 201 assisted reproductive technology children and 482 552 children spontaneously conceived, born in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Both singletons and twins born after in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmatic sperm injection and frozen embryo transfer were included. Data on children were taken from when the national Nordic assisted reproductive technology registries were established until 2007. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the risks and adjusted odds ratios for congenital malformations in four time periods: 1988-1992, 1993-1997, 1998-2002 and 2003-2007. Only major malformations were included.
RESULTS: The absolute risk for singletons of being born with a major malformation was 3.4% among assisted reproductive technology children vs. 2.9% among children spontaneously conceived during the study period. The relative risk of being born with a major congenital malformation between all assisted reproductive technology children and children spontaneously conceived remained similar through all four time periods (p = 0.39). However, we found that over time the number of children diagnosed with a major malformation increased in both groups across all four time periods.
CONCLUSION: When comparing children conceived after assisted reproductive technology and spontaneously conceived, the relative risk of being born with a major congenital malformation did not change during the study period.
© 2018 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assisted reproduction; congenital malformations; perinatal outcome; subfertility; trends

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29572867     DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13347

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  5 in total

Review 1.  Perinatal outcome in children born after assisted reproductive technologies.

Authors:  Ulla-Britt Wennerholm; Christina Bergh
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.384

Review 2.  Risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children born from different ART treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tono Djuwantono; Jenifer Kiem Aviani; Wiryawan Permadi; Tri Hanggono Achmad; Danny Halim
Journal:  J Neurodev Disord       Date:  2020-12-13       Impact factor: 4.025

3.  Impact of parental chromosomal polymorphisms on the incidence of congenital anomalies and perinatal complications in a cohort of newborns conceived after ICSI + PGT-A.

Authors:  Freddy Rodriguez; Maria Cruz; Antonio Requena
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 4.982

4.  Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in fresh and frozen cycles using blastocysts derived from ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta.

Authors:  Jon Havelock; Anna-Karina Aaris Henningsen; Bernadette Mannaerts; Joan-Carles Arce
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Maternal exposure to airborne polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and risk of adverse birth outcomes.

Authors:  Ane Bungum Kofoed; Laura Deen; Karin Sørig Hougaard; Kajsa Ugelvig Petersen; Harald William Meyer; Ellen Bøtker Pedersen; Niels Erik Ebbehøj; Berit Lilienthal Heitmann; Jens Peter Bonde; Sandra Søgaard Tøttenborg
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-08-22       Impact factor: 8.082

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.