Assisted reproduction and risk of preterm birth in singletons by infertility diagnoses and treatment modalities: a population-based study
- 374 Downloads
The purpose of this study is to examine the spectrum of infertility diagnoses and assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments in relation to risk of preterm birth (PTB) in singletons.
Population-based assisted reproductive technology surveillance data for 2000–2010 were linked with birth certificates from three states: Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan, resulting in a sample of 4,370,361 non-ART and 28,430 ART-related singletons. Logistic regression models with robust variance estimators were used to compare PTB risk among singletons conceived with and without ART, the former grouped by parental infertility diagnoses and treatment modalities. Demographic and pregnancy factors were included in adjusted analyses.
ART was associated with increased PTB risk across all infertility diagnosis groups and treatment types: for conventional ART, adjusted relative risks ranged from 1.4 (95% CI 1.0, 1.9) for male infertility to 2.4 (95% CI 1.8, 3.3) for tubal ligation. Adding intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection and/or assisted hatching to conventional ART treatment did not alter associated PTB risks. Singletons conceived by mothers without infertility diagnosis and with donor semen had an increased PTB risk relative to non-ART singletons.
PTB risk among ART singletons is increased within each treatment type and all underlying infertility diagnosis, including male infertility. Preterm birth in ART singletons may be attributed to parental infertility, ART treatments, or their combination.
KeywordsAssisted reproductive technology Infertility Preterm birth Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection Assisted hatching Donor oocytes or embryos
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
M.P.D is a stockholder in and on the Board of Directors of Advanced Reproductive Care, and has received a grant from Serono.
This research was supported in part by a T32 Grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (T32-HD046377).
The study received approval from the Institutional Review Boards of Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and the CDC.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
- 6.Dunietz GL, Holzman C, McKane P, Li C, Boulet SL, Todem D, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of preterm birth among primiparas. Fertil Steril. 2015; doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.015.
- 19.Henningsen AK, Pinborg A, Lidegaard O, 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(3):959–63. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.07.1075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Soderstrom-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(2):87–104. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Levron Y, Dviri M, Segol I, Yerushalmi GM, Hourvitz A, Orvieto R, et al. The ‘immunologic theory’ of preeclampsia revisited: a lesson from donor oocyte gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;(4):211, 383.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.044.
- 28.Malchau SS, Loft A, Henningsen AK, Nyboe Andersen A, Pinborg A. Perinatal outcomes in 6,338 singletons born after intrauterine insemination in Denmark, 2007 to 2012: the influence of ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1110–1116.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Barfield WD. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2011. Morb Mort Weekly Rep Surveil Sum (Washington, DC : 2002). 2014;63(10):1–28.Google Scholar