Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2019; 36(03): 258-261
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1667288
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Premature Infants Conceived with Assisted Reproductive Technology: An Analysis of Infant Morbidity, Compared with Infants Conceived Naturally

Melissa Scala
1   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
,
Jennifer Berg
2   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Martin Keszler
3   Department of Pediatrics, Brown University Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island
,
Kabir Abubakar
2   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

14 March 2018

14 June 2018

Publication Date:
31 July 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This article evaluates the morbidity of infants born via assisted reproductive technology (ART) compared with matched naturally conceived infants.

Study Design This is a retrospective review of maternal and infant data among inborn infants conceived via ART and matched control infants born at 30 to 34 weeks' gestational age (GA) between 2006 and 2012. Data were analyzed using paired t-test or Wilcoxo–Mann–Whitney test for continuous and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-Value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

Result Of 120 study infants, 60 were conceived via ART and 60 naturally. Control infants were matched for GA, gender, race, and multiple gestations. ART infants required more respiratory support and took longer to reach full feeds compared with control infants.

Conclusion Infants born via ART are physiologically more immature with more intensive care needs than naturally conceived infants of similar gestation, potentially increasing health care costs. This immaturity should be considered when planning early delivery in these pregnancies.

Keywords

assisted reproductive technology - neonatal outcomes - preterm infant - neonatal intensive care unit
 

  • References

  • 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2015 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J. , et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (07) 1588-1609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (10) 731-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tallo CP, Vohr B, Oh W, Rubin LP, Seifer DB, Haning Jr RV. Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with in vitro fertilization. J Pediatr 1995; 127 (05) 794-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DAM, Donker D, Keirse MJNC. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2004; 328 (7434): 261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A. ; Knowledge Synthesis Group. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 146 (02) 138-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dhont M, De Sutter P, Ruyssinck G, Martens G, Bekaert A. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181 (03) 688-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Delpachitra P, Palmer K, Onwude J. , et al. Ultrasound reference chart based on IVF dates to estimate gestational age at 6–9 weeks' gestation. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2012; 2012: 938583
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dias T, Mahsud-Dornan S, Thilaganathan B, Papageorghiou A, Bhide A. First-trimester ultrasound dating of twin pregnancy: are singleton charts reliable?. BJOG 2010; 117 (08) 979-984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wang S, Cowan CA, Chipperfield H, Powers RD. Gene expression in the preimplantation embryo: in-vitro developmental changes. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10 (05) 607-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Young LE, Fernandes K, McEvoy TG. , et al. Epigenetic change in IGF2R is associated with fetal overgrowth after sheep embryo culture. Nat Genet 2001; 27 (02) 153-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat Genet 2003; 33 (Suppl): 245-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rice WR, Friberg U, Gavrilets S. Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development. Q Rev Biol 2012; 87 (04) 343-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Marchesi DE, Qiao J, Feng HL. Embryo manipulation and imprinting. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30 (04) 323-334
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Market-Velker BA, Zhang L, Magri LS, Bonvissuto AC, Mann MR. Dual effects of superovulation: loss of maternal and paternal imprinted methylation in a dose-dependent manner. Hum Mol Genet 2010; 19 (01) 36-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar