Literature DB >> 31466699

Health outcomes for Massachusetts infants after fresh versus frozen embryo transfer.

Sunah S Hwang1, Dmitry Dukhovny2, Daksha Gopal3, Howard Cabral3, Hafsatou Diop4, Charles C Coddington5, Judy E Stern6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare neonatal health outcomes after fresh versus frozen ET (FET).
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a population-based database of linked clinically assisted reproductive technology (ART) data with state vital records. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the association between deliveries from fresh versus FET and adverse health outcomes, controlling for maternal characteristics.
SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Live-born singleton infants born to Massachusetts women who conceived by fresh or FET after ART using autologous oocytes between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Preterm birth, low birth weight, neonatal mortality, birth defects, organ system conditions. RESULT(S): Compared with infants conceived from fresh embryos, those born to mothers who underwent FET were less likely to be small for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.70) and low birth weight (AOR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88) but more likely to be large for gestational age (AOR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70) and to experience greater odds of infectious disease (AOR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03-2.06), respiratory (AOR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.41), and neurologic (AOR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.68) conditions. There were no statistically significant differences in preterm birth, neonatal mortality, birth defects, cardiovascular, hematologic, and gastrointestinal/feeding conditions, and for infants ≥ 35 weeks, no statistically significant differences in prolonged hospital stay (>3 days for vaginal delivery, >5 days for cesarean). CONCLUSION(S): Compared with infants conceived from fresh ET, those born by FET have higher birth weight but increased odds of infectious disease, hematologic, respiratory, and neurologic abnormalities. These risks should be considered when making decisions on fresh versus FET.
Copyright © 2019 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Birth outcomes; FET; assisted reproductive technology; fresh embryo transfer; in vitro fertilization; newborn

Year:  2019        PMID: 31466699      PMCID: PMC6858957          DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  30 in total

1.  1995 assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic report.

Authors:  I A Danel; Y T Green; G Walter
Journal:  J Womens Health       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 2.  Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and assisted reproductive technology in the United States: a 2016 update.

Authors:  James P Toner; Charles C Coddington; Kevin Doody; Brad Van Voorhis; David B Seifer; G David Ball; Barbara Luke; Ethan Wantman
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-06-11       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Transfer of Fresh versus Frozen Embryos in Ovulatory Women.

Authors:  Yuhua Shi; Yun Sun; Cuifang Hao; Heping Zhang; Daimin Wei; Yunshan Zhang; Yimin Zhu; Xiaohui Deng; Xiujuan Qi; Hong Li; Xiang Ma; Haiqin Ren; Yaqin Wang; Dan Zhang; Bo Wang; Fenghua Liu; Qiongfang Wu; Ze Wang; Haiyan Bai; Yuan Li; Yi Zhou; Mei Sun; Hong Liu; Jing Li; Lin Zhang; Xiaoli Chen; Songying Zhang; Xiaoxi Sun; Richard S Legro; Zi-Jiang Chen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies.

Authors:  Suneet P Chauhan; Madeline Murguia Rice; William A Grobman; Jennifer Bailit; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Mona Prasad; Alan T N Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Jorge E Tolosa
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Validation of birth outcomes from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS): population-based analysis from the Massachusetts Outcome Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology (MOSART).

Authors:  Judy E Stern; Daksha Gopal; Rebecca F Liberman; Marlene Anderka; Milton Kotelchuck; Barbara Luke
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: the Danish National Cohort Study 1995-2006.

Authors:  Anja Pinborg; Anne Loft; Anna-Karina Aaris Henningsen; Steen Rasmussen; Anders Nyboe Andersen
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 7.  Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale.

Authors:  Rachel Weinerman; Monica Mainigi
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  The MOSART database: linking the SART CORS clinical database to the population-based Massachusetts PELL reproductive public health data system.

Authors:  Milton Kotelchuck; Lan Hoang; Judy E Stern; Hafsatou Diop; Candice Belanoff; Eugene Declercq
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2014-11

9.  The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017.

Authors:  Fernando Zegers-Hochschild; G David Adamson; Silke Dyer; Catherine Racowsky; Jacques de Mouzon; Rebecca Sokol; Laura Rienzi; Arne Sunde; Lone Schmidt; Ian D Cooke; Joe Leigh Simpson; Sheryl van der Poel
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for full-term singleton birth: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Junwei Zhang; Mingze Du; Zhe Li; Lulu Wang; Jijun Hu; Bei Zhao; Yingying Feng; Xiaolin Chen; Lijun Sun
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 4.234

View more
  6 in total

1.  The risk of birth defects with conception by ART.

Authors:  Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Ethan Wantman; Nina E Forestieri; Marilyn L Browne; Sarah C Fisher; Mahsa M Yazdy; Mary K Ethen; Mark A Canfield; Stephanie Watkins; Hazel B Nichols; Leslie V Farland; Sergio Oehninger; Kevin J Doody; Michael L Eisenberg; Valerie L Baker
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Influence of Placental Abnormalities and Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension in Prematurity Associated with Various Assisted Reproductive Technology Techniques.

Authors:  Judy E Stern; Chia-Ling Liu; Sunah S Hwang; Dmitry Dukhovny; Leslie V Farland; Hafsatou Diop; Charles C Coddington; Howard Cabral
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 4.241

3.  Construction and validation of a preterm birth risk assessment model using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process.

Authors:  Stavroula Barbounaki; Antigoni Sarantaki
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.363

Review 4.  Is Embryo Cryopreservation Causing Macrosomia-and What Else?

Authors:  Raoul Orvieto; Michal Kirshenbaum; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 5.555

5.  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

6.  Embryo cryopreservation and utilization in the United States from 2004-2013.

Authors:  Mindy S Christianson; Judy E Stern; Fangbai Sun; Heping Zhang; Aaron K Styer; Wendy Vitek; Alex J Polotsky
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-09-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.