Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 33, Issue 9, pp 1203–1213 | Cite as

Perinatal outcomes of singleton siblings: the effects of changing maternal fertility status

  • Barbara LukeEmail author
  • Daksha Gopal
  • Howard Cabral
  • Hafsatou Diop
  • Judy E. Stern
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of changing fertility status on perinatal outcomes of singleton siblings, conceived with and without assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Method

A longitudinal cohort study of Massachusetts resident women having two consecutive singleton births during 2004–2010 was performed. Women were classified as ART (A), subfertile (S), or fertile (F) and categorized by their fertility status in each birth as A-A, A-S, S-A, S-S, F-A, F-S, and F-F. Within categories, adjusted mean birthweights, gestations, and birthweight Z scores were estimated with linear generalized estimating equations. Risks of low birthweight (LBW, <2500 g), preterm birth (PTB, <37 weeks), and placental complications were modeled using logistic regression by fertility status as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Birthweights in second pregnancies averaged 74–155 g higher, except for births to F-A women, who averaged −16 g lower. Most women had a reduction in length of gestation in their second pregnancies, with F-A women having the largest decline (−0.5 weeks). In first birth models, the risks for LBW and placental complications were increased for subfertile (AOR 1.39 [1.07–1.81] and 1.97 [1.33–2.93], respectively) and ART women (AOR 1.58 [1.29–1.93] and 3.40 [2.64–4.37], respectively). Second birth models showed increased risks for ART births of LBW (AOR 3.13 [2.19–4.48]) and placental complications (AOR 2.45 [1.56–3.86]) and greater risks of PTB for both ART (AOR 2.37 [1.74–3.23]) and subfertile women (AOR 1.47 [1.02–2.13]).

Conclusions

Declining fertility status, with and without assisted reproductive technology treatment, is associated with increasing risks for adverse outcomes, greatest for women whose fertility status declined the most.

Keywords

Fertile Subfertile Assisted reproductive technology Infertility Adverse pregnancy outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The SART wishes to thank all of its members for providing clinical information to the SART CORS database for use by patients and researchers. Without the efforts of our members, this research would not have been possible. The project described was supported by grant R01HD067270 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Barbara Luke is a research consultant to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; all other authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birthweight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:731–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;328:261–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang YA, Sullivan EA, Black D, Dean J, Bryant J, Chapman M. Preterm birth and low birth weight after assisted reproductive technology-related pregnancy in Australia between 1996 and 2000. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1650–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:551–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A, et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146:138–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buck Louis GM, Schisterman EF, Dukic VM, Schieve LA. Research hurdles complicating the analysis of infertility treatment and child health. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:12–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutcliffe AG, Ludwig M. Outcome of assisted reproduction. Lancet. 2007;370:351–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kondapalli LA, Perales-Puchalt A. Low birth weight: is it related to assisted reproductive technology or underlying infertility? Fertil Steril. 2013;99:303–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shimizu Y, Kodama H, Fukuda J, Murata M, Kumagai J, Tanaka T. Spontaneous conception after the birth of infants conceived through in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 1999;71:35–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Romundstad LB, Romundstad PR, Sunde A, von Düring V, Vatten LJ. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI; a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2353–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Romundstad LB, Romundstad PR, Sunde A, von Düring V, Skjærven R, Gunnell D, et al. Effects of technology or maternal factors on perinatal outcome after assisted fertilization: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2008;372:737–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shih W, Rushford DD, Bourne H, Garrett C, McBain JC, Healy DL, et al. Factors affecting low birthweight after assisted reproduction technology: difference between transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos suggests an adverse effect of oocyte collection. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1644–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henningsen A-KA, Pinborg A, Lidegaard Ø, Vestergaard C, Forman JL, Andersen AN. Perinatal outcome of singleton siblings born after assisted reproductive technology and spontaneous conception: Danish national sibling-cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:959–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kotelchuck M, Hoang L, Stern JE, Diop D, Belanoff C, Declercq E. The MOSART database: linking the SART CORS clinical database to the population-based Massachusetts PELL reproductive public health data system. Matern Child Health J. 2014. doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1465-4.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Declercq ER, Belanoff C, Diop H, Gopal D, Hornstein MD, Kotelchuck M, et al. Identifying women with indicators of subfertility in a statewide population database: operationalizing the missing link in ART research. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:463–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stern JE, Kotelchuck M, Luke B, Declercq E, Cabral H, Diop H. Calculating length of gestation from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) database versus vital records may alter reported rates of prematurity. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1315–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stern JE, Luke B, Hornstein MD, Cabral H, Gopal D, Diop H, et al. The effect of father’s age in fertile, subfertile, and assisted reproductive technology pregnancies: a population based cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:1437–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Getz KD, Liberman RF, Luke B, Stern JE, Declercq E, Anderka MT. The occurrence of birth defects in relation to assisted reproductive technologies in the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology database. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Declercq E, Luke B, Belanoff C, Cabral H, Diop H, Gopal D, et al. Perinatal Outcomes Associated with Assisted Reproductive Technology: the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (MOSART). Fertil Steril. 2015;103:888–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stern JE, Luke B, Tobias M, Gopal D, Hornstein MD, Diop H. Adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes by infertility diagnoses with and without ART treatment. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1438–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luke B, Stern JE, Kotelchuck M, Declercq ER, Hornstein MD, Gopal D, et al. Adverse pregnancy outcomes after in vitro fertilization: effect of number of embryos transferred and plurality at conception. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:79–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Declercq ER, Luke B, Stern JE, Diop H, Gopal D, Cabral H, et al. Maternal postpartum hospitalization following ART births (research letter). Epidemiology. 2015;26:e64–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luke B, Stern JE, Kotelchuck M, Declercq E, Cohen B, Diop H. Birth outcomes by infertility diagnosis: analyses of the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (MOSART). J Reprod Med. 2015;60:480–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Diop H, Gopal D, Cabral H, Belanoff C, Declercq ER, Kotelchuck M, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and early intervention enrollment. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20152007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luke B, Stern JE, Kotelchuck M, Declercq E, Anderka M, Diop H. Birth outcomes by infertility treatment: analyses of the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (MOSART). J Reprod Med. 2016;61:114–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Belanoff C, Declercq ER, Diop H, Gopal D, Kotelchuck M, Luke B, et al. Severe maternal morbidity and the use of assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:527–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stern JE, Gopal D, Anderka M, Liberman R, Kotelchuck M, Luke B. Validation of birth outcomes in the SART CORS: population-based analysis from the Massachusetts Outcome Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology (MOSART). Fertil Steril. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.042.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2012 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2014.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oken E, Kleinman KP, Rich-Edwards J, Gillman MW. A nearly continuous measure of birth weight for gestational age using a United States national reference. BMC Pediatr. 2003;3:6–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Land JA. How should we report on perinatal outcome? Human Reproduction. 2006;21:2638–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Farhi A, Reichman B, Boyko V, Hourvitz A, Ron-El R, Lerner-Geva L. Maternal and neonatal health outcomes following assisted reproduction. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26:454–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sazonova A, Källen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm U-B, Bergh C. Factors affecting obstetric outcome of singletons born after IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2878–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hayashi M, Nakai A, Satoh S, Matsuda Y. Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies may be related to maternal factors associated with infertility rather than the type of assisted reproductive technology procedure used. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:922–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice and the Practice Committee of ASRM. Female age-related fertility decline. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:633–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luke B, Brown MB, Stern JE, Missmer SA, Fujimoto VY, Leach R. Female obesity adversely affects assisted reproductive technology (ART) pregnancy and live birth rates. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:245–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Salha O, Sharma V, Dada T, Nugent D, Rutherford AJ, Tomlinson AJ, et al. The influence of donated gametes on the incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2268–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Keegan DA, Krey LC, Chang HC, Noyes N. Increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension in young recipients of donated oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:776–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Younis JS, Laufer N. Oocyte donation is an independent risk factor for pregnancy complications: the implications for women of advanced age. J Women’s Health. 2015;24:127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:S1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Opdahl S, Henningsen AA, Tiitinen A, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Romundstad PR, et al. Risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology: a cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1724–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendricks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:685–718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2013 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2015.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Balasch J, Gratacós E. Delayed childbearing: effects on fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24:187–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Werler E, Mendola P, Männistö T, O’Loughlin J, Laughon SK. Effect of maternal chronic disease on obstetric complications in twin pregnancies in a United States cohort. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:142–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sattar N, Greer IA. Pregnancy complications and maternal cardiovascular risk: opportunities for intervention and screening? BMJ. 2002;325:157–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2014. Nat Vital Stati Rep. 2015;64:12.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    EP, Chiang V, Pletcher MJ, et al. History of gestational diabetes mellitus and future risk of atherosclerosis in mid-life: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000490
  48. 48.
    Rich-Edwards JW, Fraser A, Lawlor DA, et al. Pregnancy characteristics and women’s future cardiovascular health: an underused opportunity to improve women’s health? Epidemiol Rev. 2014;SI:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fraser A, Nelson SM, MacDonald-Wallis C, et al. Associations of pregnancy complications with calculated cardiovascular disease risk and cardiovascular risk factors in middle age. The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Circulation. 2012;125:1367–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Catov JM, Ness RB, Wellons MF, et al. Prepregnancy lipids related to preterm birth risk: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95:3711–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mongraw-Chaffin ML, Cirillo PM, Cohn BA. Preeclampsia and cardiovascular disease death prospective evidence from the Child Health and Development Studies cohort. Hypertension. 2010;56:166–U264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Retnakaran R, Qi Y, Connelly PW, et al. Glucose intolerance in pregnancy and postpartum risk of metabolic syndrome in young women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95:670–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    White WM, Mielke MM, Araoz PA, Lahr BD, Bailey KR, Jayachandran M, et al. A history of preeclampsia is associated with a risk for coronary artery calcification 3 decades later. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:519.e1-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Boulet SL, Schieve LA, Nannini A, Ferre C, Devine O, Cohen B, et al. Perinatal outcomes of twin births conceived using assisted reproduction technology: a population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1941–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang Z, Macaluso M, Cohen B, Schieve L, Nannini A, Chen M, et al. Accuracy of assisted reproductive technology information on the Massachusetts birth certificate, 1997-2000. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1657–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mneimneh AS, Boulet SL, Sunderam S, Zhang YJ, Jamieson DJ, Crawford S, et al. States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative: data collection, linkage, dissemination, and use. J Women’s Health. 2013;22:571–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, College of Human MedicineMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community Health SciencesBoston University School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsBoston University School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  4. 4.Massachusetts Department of Public HealthBostonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyGeisel School of Medicine at DartmouthLebanonUSA

Personalised recommendations