Advertisement

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 188, Issue 1, pp 161–167 | Cite as

Reproductive ageing—turning back the clock?

  • Yvonne O’BrienEmail author
  • Mary B. Wingfield
Review Article
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Unintended childlessness is a distressing, and often unintended, consequence of delayed childbearing and reproductive ageing. The average maternal age at first birth has risen steadily in many industrialised countries since the 1980s. There are many societal factors involved in the decision to postpone motherhood. As a result, many women are postponing having children until it is too late. In this review, we aim to summarise the reasons behind delayed childbearing, the impact of delayed childbearing and the scientific advances that seek to reverse reproductive ageing and ensure reproductive autonomy for women.

Methods

An extensive literature search of PubMed was conducted to include all published articles on delayed childbearing and the consequences of reproductive ageing. Secondary articles were identified from key paper reference listings.

Conclusion

If the current reproductive trends continue, many women will find themselves in the harrowing position of being unintentionally childless. In addition, many will inevitably turn to assisted reproductive technologies in an effort to protect and preserve their reproductive autonomy. However, it is not always possible to reverse the effects of reproductive ageing.

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technology Fertility Oocyte vitrification Ovarian reserve Reproduction 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Breart G (1997) Delayed childbearing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 75(1):71–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waldenström U (2016) Postponing parenthood to advanced age. Ups J Med Sci 9734(September):1–9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heck KE, Schoendorf KC, Ventura SJ, Kiely JL (1997) Delayed childbearing by education level in the United States, 1969-1994. Matern Child Health J 1(2):81–88Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mills TA, Lavender R, Lavender T (2015) “Forty is the new twenty”: an analysis of British media portrayals of older mothers. Sex Reprod Healthc 6(2):88–94Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ledger WL (2009) Demographics of infertility. Reprod Biomed Online 18(Suppl 2):11–14Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Schytt E, Nilsen ABV, Bernhardt E (2014) Still childless at the age of 28 to 40 years: a cross-sectional study of Swedish women’s and men’s reproductive intentions. Sex Reprod Healthc 5(1):23–29Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matthews TJ, Hamilton BE (2009) Delayed childbearing: more women are having their first child later in life. NCHS Data Brief 21:1–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunson DB, Colombo B, Baird DD (2002) Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 17(5):1399–1403Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooke A, Mills TA, Lavender T (2012) Advanced maternal age: delayed childbearing is rarely a conscious choice. A qualitative study of women’s views and experiences. Int J Nurs Stud 49(1):30–39Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rijken AJ, Liefbroer AC (2009) Influences of the family of origin on the timing and quantum of fertility in the Netherlands. Popul Stud (NY) 63(1):71–85Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, te Velde E, on behalf of the ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force (2011) Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update 17(6):848–860Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tough S, Tofflemire K, Benzies K, Fraser-Lee N, Newburn-Cook C (2007) Factors influencing childbearing decisions and knowledge of perinatal risks among Canadian men and women. Matern Child Health J 11(2):189–198Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson R, Lee C (2011) Sooner or later? Young Australian men’s perspectives on timing of parenthood. J Health Psychol 16(5):807–818Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanazawa S (2014) Intelligence and childlessness. Soc Sci Res 48:157–170Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooke A, Mills TA, Lavender T (2010) “Informed and uninformed decision making”—women’s reasoning, experiences and perceptions with regard to advanced maternal age and delayed childbearing: a meta-synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud 47(10):1317–1329Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Westoff CF, Koffman DA (2011) The association of television and radio with reproductive behavior. Popul Dev Rev 37(4):749–759Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dutta-Bergman MJ (2004) Primary sources of health information: comparisons in the domain of health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors. Health Commun 16(3):273–288Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wyndham N, Marin Figueira PG, Patrizio P (2012) A persistent misperception: assisted reproductive technology can reverse the “aged biological clock”. Fertil Steril 97(5):1044–1047Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bromer JG, Patrizio P (2008) Preservation and postponement of female fertility. Placenta 29(SUPPL.2):200–205Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benzies K, Tough S, Tofflemire K, Frick C, Faber A, Newburn-Cook C (2006) Factors influencing women’s decisions about timing of motherhood. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 35(5):625–633Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maheshwari A, Porter M, Shetty A, Bhattacharya S (2008) Women’s awareness and perceptions of delay in childbearing. Fertil Steril 90(4):1036–1042Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Noord-Zaadstra BM, Looman CW, Alsbach H, Habbema JD, te Velde ER, Karbaat J (1991) Delaying childbearing: effect of age on fecundity and outcome of pregnancy. BMJ 302(6789):1361–1365Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gosden R (1995) Delayed childbearing. BMJ 311:1585–1586Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Te Velde E, Habbema D, Leridon H et al (2012) The effect of postponement of first motherhood on permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries since the 1970s. Hum Reprod 27(4):1179–1183Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leridon H, Slama R (2008) The impact of a decline in fecundity and of pregnancy postponement on final number of children and demand for assisted reproduction technology. Hum Reprod 23(6):1312–1319Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosen MP, Johnstone E, Addauan-Andersen C, Cedars MI (2011) A lower antral follicle count is associated with infertility. Fertil Steril 95(6):1950–1954.e1Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hassold T, Hunt P (2001) To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2(April):280–291Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nicolaides KH (2005) First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Semin Perinatol 29(4):190–194Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr (2014) The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 101(3):656–663Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Penrose L (1933) The relative effects of paternal and maternal age in mongolism. J Genet 27:219–224Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bentov Y, Yavorska T, Esfandiari N, Jurisicova A, Casper RF et al (2011) The contribution of mitochondrial function to reproductive aging. J Assist Reprod Genet 28:773–783Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Balasch JGE (2012) Delayed childbearing: effects on fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. Curr Opin Obs Gynecol 75(1):187–193Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Broekmans FJ, Knauff EAH, Velde ER et al (2007) Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends Endcrinol Metab 18(2):58–65Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Brien YM, Ryan M, Martyn F et al (2017) A retrospective study of the effect of increasing age on success rates of assisted reproductive technology. Int J Gynecol Obstet 138(1):42–46Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Balasch J, Gratacós E (2011) Delayed childbearing: effects on fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther 29(4):263–273Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tsafrir A, Simon A, Revel A, Reubinoff B, Lewin A, Laufer N (2007) Retrospective analysis of 1217 IVF cycles in women aged 40 years and older. Reprod BioMed Online 14(3):348–355Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leridon H (2004) Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Hum Reprod 19(7):1548–1553Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nybo Andersen AM, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P et al (2000) Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ 320(7251):1708–1712Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bouyer J (2003) Epidemiology of ectopic pregnancy: incidence, risk factors and outcomes. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 32(7 Suppl):S8–17Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khoshnood B, Bouvier-Colle M-H, Leridon H et al (2008) Impact of advanced maternal age on fecundity and women’s and children’s health. Impact l’age Matern. Elev. sur la Fertil. la sante la mere la sante l’enfant 37(8):733–747Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Foix-L’Helias L, Blondel B (2000) Changes in risk factors of preterm delivery in France between 1981 and 1995. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 14(4):314–323Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ogawa K, Urayama KY, Tanigaki S et al. (2017) BMC pregnancy childbirth 10. 17(1):349Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Joseph KS, Allen AC, Dodds L, Turner LA, Scott H, Liston R (2005) The perinatal effects of delayed childbearing. Obstet Gynecol 105(6):1410–1418Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cnattingius S, Forman MR, Berendes HW II (1992) Delayed childbearing and risk of adverse perinatal outcome. J Am Med Assoc 268(7):886–890Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Odibo AO, Nelson D, Stamilio DM et al. (2006) Advanced maternal age is an independent risk factor for intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Perinatol 1(212):325–8Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huang L, Sauve R, Birkett N, Fergusson D, van Walraven C (2008) Maternal age and risk of stillbirth: a systematic review. Can Med Assoc J 178(2):165–172Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wu YW, Croen LA, Shah SJ, Newman TB, Najjar DV (2006) Cerebral palsy in a term population: risk factors and neuroimaging findings. Pediatrics 118(2):690–697Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, Khandwala M, McDonald SD (2012) Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 97(2):324–331Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kalra SK, Ratcliffe SJ, Coutifaris C, Molinaro T, Barnhart KT (2011) Ovarian stimulation and low birth weight in infants conceived through in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol 118(4):863–871Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sagot P, Bechoua S, Ferdynus C, Facy A, Flamm X, Gouyon JB, Jimenez C (2012) Similarly increased congenital anomaly rates after intrauterine insemination and IVF technologies: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 27(3):902–909Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gosden R, Trasler J, Lucifero D, Faddy M (2003) Rare congenital disorders, imprinted genes, and assisted reproductive technology. Lancet 361(9373):1975–1977Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rossignol S, Steunou V, Chalas C, Kerjean A, Rigolet M, Viegas-Pequignot E, Jouannet P, le Bouc Y, Gicquel C (2006) The epigenetic imprinting defect of patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome born after assisted reproductive technology is not restricted to the 11p15 region. J Med Genet 43(12):902–907Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Usta I, Nassar A (2008) Advanced maternal age. Part I: obstetric complications. Am J Perinatol 25(8):521–534Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sauer MV (2015) Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health. Fertil Steril 103:1136–1143Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wildman K, Bouvier-Colle M-H, MOMS Group (2004) Maternal mortality as an indicator of obstetric care in Europe. BJOG 111(2):164–169Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I (2004) Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):727–733Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weerasekera DS, Udugama SG (2003) Pregnancy at 40 and over: a case-control study in a developing country. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore) 23:625–627Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ziadeh SM, SM Z (2002) Maternal and perinatal outcome in nulliparous women aged 35 and older. Gynecol Obstet Investig 54(1):6–10Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    O’Brien Y, Martyn F, Glover LE et al (2014) What women want? A scoping survey on women’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards ovarian reserve testing and egg freezing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 217:71–76Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sauer MV, Kavic SM (2006) Oocyte and embryo donation: reviewing two decades of innovation and controversy. Reprod BioMed Online 12(2):153–162Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cobo A, Remohí J, Chang C-C, Nagy ZP (2011) Oocyte cryopreservation for donor egg banking. Reprod BioMed Online 23:341–346Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Levine AD (2011) The oversight and practice of oocyte donation in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. HEC Forum 23(1):15–30Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tremellen K, Savulescu J (2014) Ovarian reserve screening: a scientific and ethical analysis. Hum Reprod 29(12):2606–2614Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    te Velde ER, Pearson P (2002) The variability of female reproductive aging. Hum Reprod Update 8(2):141–154Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Broer SL, Broekmans FJM, Laven JSE, Fauser BCJM (2014) Anti Mullerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update 20(5):688–701Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Martyn F, O’Brien YM, Wingfield M (2017) Review of clinical indicators, including serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels, for identification of women who should consider egg freezing. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 138(1):37–41Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Vigier B, Picard JY, Tran D et al (1984) Production of anti-Müllerian hormone: another homology between sertoli and granulosa cells. Endocrinology 114(4):1315–1320Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    De Vet A, Laven JSE, De Jong FH et al (2002) Anti-Mullerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertil Steril 77(2):357–362Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Steiner AZ, Herring AH, Kesner JS, Meadows JW, Stanczyk FZ, Hoberman SBD et al (2013) Antimüllerian hormone as a predictor of natural fecundability in women aged 30–42 years. Obstet Gynaecol 117(4):1–11Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, Eijkemans MJC, Mol BWJ, Broekmans FJM, on behalf of the IMPORT study group, Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Anderson RA, Ashrafi M, Bancsi L, Caroppo LE, Copperman A, Ebner T, Eldar Geva M, Erdem M, Greenblatt EM, Jayaprakasan K, Fenning R, Klinkert ER, Kwee J, Lambalk CB, la Marca A, McIlveen M, Merce LT, Muttukrishna S, Nelson SM, Ng HY, Popovic-Todorovic B, Smeenk JMJ, Tomas C, van der Linden PJQ, van Rooij IA, Vladimirov IK, Bossuyt PB, Eijkemans MJC, Mol BW, Frank B (2013) Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 19(1):26–36Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hagen CP, Vestergaard S, Juul A et al (2012) Low concentration of circulating antimüllerian hormone is not predictive of reduced fecundability in young healthy women: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 98(6):1602–8.e2Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Seifer DB, MacLaughlin DT, Christian BP et al (2002) Early follicular serum mullerian-inhibiting substance levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril 77(3):468–471Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Seifer DB, MacLaughlin DT (2007) Mullerian inhibiting substance is an ovarian growth factor of emerging clinical significance. Fertil Steril 88(3):539–546Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I et al (2006) Müllerian inhibiting substance levels at the time of HCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod 21(1):159–163Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bavan B, Porzig E, Baker VL (2011) An assessment of female university students’ attitudes toward screening technologies for ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 96(5):1195–1199Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Aguinaldo ET, Morgan DC, Julliard K (2014) What would you do if you knew? Obstet Gynecol 123:187SGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cobo A, Diaz C (2011) Clinical application of oocyte vitrification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 96(2):277–285Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohí J et al (2010) Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod 25(9):2239–2246Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rienzi L, Cobo A, Paffoni A, Scarduelli C, Capalbo A, Vajta G, Remohi J, Ragni G, Ubaldi FM (2012) Consistent and predictable delivery rates after oocyte vitrification: an observational longitudinal cohort multicentric study. Hum Reprod 27(6):1606–1612Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Cobo A, Serra V, Garrido N, Olmo I, Pellicer A, Remohí J (2014) Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril 102(4):1006–1015.e4Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dondorp W, De Wert G, Pennings G et al (2012) Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod 27(5):1231–1237Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    ASRM (2013) Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril 99(1):37–43Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chen C (1986) Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet 1986 327(8486):884–886Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bromfield JJ, Coticchio G, Hutt K, Sciajno R, Borini A, Albertini DF (2009) Meiotic spindle dynamics in human oocytes following slow-cooling cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 24(9):2114–2123Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC et al (2011) Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod 26(11):3181–3185Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cobo A, García-Velasco JA, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohí J (2016) Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril 105(3):755–764e8Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nagy ZP, Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Bernal DP, Elsner CW, Mitchell-Leef D, Toledo AA, Kort HI (2009) Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking. Fertil Steril 92(2):520–526Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    García JI, Noriega-Portella L, Noriega-Hoces L (2011) Efficacy of oocyte vitrification combined with blastocyst stage transfer in an egg donation program. Hum Reprod 26(4):782–790Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J et al (2016) The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod 22(8):545–557Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S (2015) Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(10):1–21Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S (2011) Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 17(4):454–466Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH (2014) Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12:22Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM (2015) The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 30(2):473–483Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Greco E, Minasi MGFF (2015) Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med Circ 373:2089–2090Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    O’Shea LC, Mehta J, Lonergan P et al (2012) Developmental competence in oocytes and cumulus cells: candidate genes and networks. Syst Biol Reprod Med 58(2):88–101Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kovalevsky G, Patrizio P (2005) High rates of embryo wastage with use of assisted reproductive technology: a look at the trends between 1995 and 2001 in the United States. Fertil Steril 84(2):325–330Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Black M, Bhattacharya S (2010) Epidemiology of multiple pregnancy and the effect of assisted conception. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 15(6):309–312Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Merrion Fertility ClinicNational Maternity HospitalDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.National Maternity HospitalDublin 2Ireland
  3. 3.School of MedicineUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations